Slashdot Mirror


Judge Lets Sony Access GeoHot's PayPal Account

An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from TechDirt that says "Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has awarded Sony a subpoena that grants the company access to the PayPal account of PlayStation 3 jailbreaker George Hotz, also known as GeoHot, for the last two years. Emil: Spero ruled that the Japanese console maker may acquire 'documents sufficient to identify the source of funds in California that went into any PayPal account associated with geohot@gmail.com for the period of January 1, 2009, to February 1, 2011.'"

288 comments

  1. Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I donated $50.

    1. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Informative

      I donated $50.

      Not if you donated to his legal fund. The legal fund donations only started AFTER Feb 1st.
      This time period only covers donations made during the time period is was actually working on the hacks.

    2. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too!

    3. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lookin' out. I donated February 20th, 2011. Looks like I am good. :)

    4. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I donated $50.

      I'd be worried if I were you: Sony is eventually going to try to claim you're guilty of "funding a conspiracy to commit electronic economic terrorism" or something. Then if a certain cable news network gets on board, who knows where you could end up?

    5. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think so. Their PR is bad enough as it is, and it's pretty clear that judges are getting exasperated with the trend of corporations suing thousands of individuals at once for eleven billion dollars and a lifetime prison sentence.

      Their move is an obvious effort to get people to stop donating. The only sensible response from people is to donate more, to show them that it won't work and to make sure the number of people on the list is too large to arrest all of them without resulting in public outrage and that greatest of legal offenses, pissing off the judge.

    6. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only sensible response from people is to donate more, to show them that it won't work and to make sure the number of people on the list is too large to arrest all of them without resulting in public outrage...

      You first.... :)

    7. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2

      it's pretty clear that judges are getting exasperated with the trend of corporations suing thousands of individuals at once

      That's not how law works. If there are 100 identical cases and the first one has a certain decision then, unless appeals are involved, the rest basically inherit the same decision by precedent. There's no point at which a judge can get tired of doing his job and change his mind on the verdict. And you could really only argue abuse of process if the plaintiff is losing every time; if they're winning then what are you even talking about?

    8. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their PR is bad enough as it is

      Haven't you noticed that for transnational corporations, "bad PR" is the new black? They just don't care how bad their PR is, because they're going to get your money one way or the other.

      That's the beauty of being a transnational corporation. You can get your hands in so many pies that there's no way not to be their customer. Whether you play a PS3 or watch a movie or listen to the radio or tv or have a company that uses heavy equipment. Government contracts, supplier contracts, intellectual property. Even if you think you're boycotting Sony, you're giving Sony money somewhere, somehow. And even if you manage to be so well-informed, so well-organized that you've managed to live your life without buying anything that's made by Sony or one of their "strategic partners", there's all the patents and copyrights that they can use to sue the companies that you do buy stuff from, so your money goes to them that way.

      This is where "free markets" break down. Once a corporation has reached a certain point, there is no marketplace any more. How you gonna "boycott" Haliburton, when just by driving a car you're putting money in Haliburton's pocket. Just by heating your house.

      The whole world is a company store now, and we all owe our souls.

      To paraphrase a Buddhist proverb, If you meet John Galt walking on the road, kill him.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

      I donated $50.

      I'd be worried if I were you

      People are still donating to Scott Roeder's defense fund and he walked into a church and assassinated a doctor.

      I wonder what would happen if Planned Parenthood sued to get a list of those donors. Actually, that reminds me. Time to send P.P. my family's annual donation.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by WiglyWorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Precedent can only be set by an appeals court or higher, not by the first level of courts.

    11. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's all the patents and copyrights that they can use to sue

      This is where "free markets" break down.

      Who are the evil companies going to get to help them sue others, if the market is free?

      Patents and copyrights are antithesis to a free market.

    12. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Not to Wiki you, but do you have a few links for that (genuinely interested).

      Also, did people donate via Paypal, or other means?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    13. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Who are the evil companies going to get to help them sue others, if the market is free?

      Good point. And who are they going to get to enforce their contracts? Who's going to do their collections?

      And how are you going to collect your refunds?

      Or maybe in a "free market" there would be no need for lawsuits and contracts because everyone would be honest and forthright and nobody would ever lie.

      Patents and copyrights are antithesis to a free market.

      Are they, now? You know what else is antithetical to a free market? Reality.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sony isn't Halliburton. They sell entertainment gear... and they don't even dominate the market. I was going to buy a playstation 3 as a blu-ray player (since I don't own one currently), and then they pulled this lawsuit bullshit. Now I won't be purchasing one at all. My last TV was a Sony, my new one is a Mitsubishi, again because of the lawsuit bullshit. Halliburton can get away with it because their fingers are in everything, and their primary source of income is being involved in a good that America, and most of mankind can't live without: oil. Sony sells entertainment devices, and I have plenty of other options to choose from. Being multinational doesn't automatically make you immune to market forces...

    15. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      They sell entertainment gear

      And lots of entertainment too. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, and Columbia Pictures.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    16. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.

      Judges reverse decisions every single day. No two cases are identical. Precedent is only used as a tool for explaining a position in a law suit. It does not decide the outcome of that case. For every case that a lawyer can find precedent in his favor, there will be just as many against him. Some obvious, most obscure.

    17. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      I just googled "Scott Roeder's defense fund". Also, don't stay on Army of God's website too long; it gave me a headache.

      http://www.kansas.com/2009/10/25/1026175/auction-planned-for-roeder-defense.html
      http://www.armyofgod.com/POCScottRoederLawyerHelp.html

    18. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Yeah, when lawyers and the justice system and the government promise to stay within certain boundaries, they *never* go outside of them! They may not be admissible in court, but don't think for a second they're not just going to get a bit stack of papers documenting everything on his account from day one to now.

    19. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by kmoser · · Score: 2

      Just add a note to your donation that says, "This is NOT for hacking Sony devices."

    20. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of how I always write "Hookers and Crack" in the notes section on my checks that I write.

    21. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Kjellander · · Score: 1

      Those people are part of a terrorist organization and should have _all_ their funds seized as all terrorist suspects.

    22. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be pretty worried if I was Anonymous Coward right now.

      Oh wait...

    23. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      You should follow this by "for State Senator {any popular "family-values" senator's name}" to make sure nobody will ever use your checks as evidence.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    24. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by wamatt · · Score: 1

      Sony isn't Halliburton. They sell entertainment gear... and they don't even dominate the market. I was going to buy a playstation 3 as a blu-ray player (since I don't own one currently), and then they pulled this lawsuit bullshit. Now I won't be purchasing one at all. My last TV was a Sony, my new one is a Mitsubishi, again because of the lawsuit bullshit. Halliburton can get away with it because their fingers are in everything, and their primary source of income is being involved in a good that America, and most of mankind can't live without: oil. Sony sells entertainment devices, and I have plenty of other options to choose from. Being multinational doesn't automatically make you immune to market forces...

      Do not confuse personal idealism with a market force. A few hundred or even a few thousand angry nerds will not even be a blip on the profit radar.

      We are talking about intellectual property and hacking, not exactly massive human rights abuses which a large percentage of activists in the population can get behind.

      You are doing it because it feels good to you. It will have no effect. That is the objective truth.

    25. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      They may not be admissible in court, but don't think for a second they're not just going to get a bit stack of papers documenting everything on his account from day one to now.

      Why would Paypal give them that, and open themselves up for a lawsuit? It is trivially easy for a company like Paypal to generate a report that lists all transactions between two dates. Paypal does not save themselves any effort by giving Sony a full data dump of Geohot's account and sets it self up for a massive PR hit if they do.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    26. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Sony sells a lot more than entertainment devices.

      They sell things like, oh, battery cells. That every laptop manufacturer in the world uses. (I've lucked out, all of my recent laptop purchases have used batteries with Sanyo cells.)

      They sell intellectual property. Bought a computer with Windows or OS X, or a modern phone, or anything with a graphics card? You bought Sony's intellectual property.

    27. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What buddhist proverb is this?

    28. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      That's not how law works. If there are 100 identical cases and the first one has a certain decision then, unless appeals are involved, the rest basically inherit the same decision by precedent. There's no point at which a judge can get tired of doing his job and change his mind on the verdict. And you could really only argue abuse of process if the plaintiff is losing every time; if they're winning then what are you even talking about?

      You clearly don't understand how "Common Law" system works. There are two types of precedent - binding and persuasive.

      If 100 cases with identical circumstances are filed, then the first one resolved provides persuasive precedent - other cases can refer to it to try and persuade the judge in their case that the ruling in the first case is the proper ruling for their case as well. But judges can and do disagree, so there's no guarantee that just because one judge rules one way, another judge won't rule the other.

      Once a matter has been reviewed and ruled upon by an appellate court, it becomes binding precedent, but only for those courts beneath that particular appellate court. In other jurisdiction it remains persuasive precedent (though appellate decisions do tend to carry more weight than lower court decisions).

      A case can slowly work its way up the ladder, until eventually it reaches the Supreme Court. Once the SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, it becomes binding precedent for all courts in the US.

      Also, precedent requires the cases to be identical - a court may make a different ruling, if they can be convinced that the specific issues in the precedent are sufficiently different that the ruling in that precedent should not apply.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    29. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."
      It means that if you think you have found enlightenment, you need to "kill" that thought and continue searching. Otherwise, you stop your own progression as enlightenment is a process, not a destination.

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    30. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Just add a note to your donation that says, "This is NOT for hacking Sony devices."

      I expect Sony would just tippex out the "NOT". They really are that evil, you know.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't imagine that the sort of bozo who is in favour of murdering doctors would particularly mind having their name associated with donations to one of the murderers. They'd probably get extra bragging rights in the cave where they lived.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tqk · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase a Buddhist proverb, If you meet John Galt walking on the road, kill him.

      What an incredible, fatal, ten car pile up of philosophy you've done there. Galt went on strike. Buddah'd never advocate harming a fly. Have you ever read either of them?

      Wow.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Biggseye · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that this be a lesson. Your heart was in the right place, but you are donating to a legal defense fund for a person under investigation for a serious violation of US Federal Law. Now wither that law is dumb is not at issue. Any contact, can and most likely be found during the discovery process. What is done with it is another thing altogether. Lawyers, be they Civil, Criminal defense or Prosecutors will push the limits of the letter and the intent of the search warrant. To you think for a moment that the defense in this case would hesitate a second to hide this if they could? The second you used a third party to donate money, in this case Paypal, you can never claim confidentiality, at least under Federal Law. Also The Federal Courts have the right to issue electronic search warrants for "Business" records of any company doing business int he US.

    34. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Yeah but due to licensing, any blu-ray player you buy, gives money to Sony. Any Blu-Ray disc you buy, gives money to them. And that is only one example. The parent (grand parent or whatever) is right; it's very hard to boycott large corporations, the larger the corporation, the harder it is.

    35. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by psyclone · · Score: 1

      It's obvious PayPal doesn't give a shit about PR.

    36. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What is in it for Paypal to release the additional data to Sony? And actually, I believe that Paypal considered the larger PR from blocking Wikileaks donations to be more positive than negative. I would bet that Paypal's calculation was that those who were upset about them blocking donations to Wikileaks would be smaller group (even when considering the greater streagth of those feelings) than those who would react positively to said action.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by men0s · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. Shooting someone in a place of worship and firebombing clinics sound like intimidation through violence to promote an agenda to me. Classify all anti-abortionists as terrorists ;)

    38. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Have you ever read either of them?

      You believe you can "read" Buddha or John Galt? Do you know who they are?

      The Buddhist proverb I was referring to was "If you meet the Buddha walking on the road, kill him". If you read books about Buddhism or talk to Buddhists, you will come across this saying. I just repurposed the proverb to refer to a fictional character who a lot of people seem to believe was a real guy who could be killed.

      My point was that the notion that John Galt was either a "real person" or that the philosophical notions put forward in the book from which this fictional character comes are both highly detrimental to society. Both require a world which could never exist. In fact, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the "John Galt" fiction is one that is doing immeasurable harm to society. Thus, "kill John Galt".

      Most people either grow out of the world-view that they had as undergraduates or refine them to fit the world as it is. Objectivists do neither. They're philosophical and intellectual development stopps their sophomoric second year of college. You can see this in the neckbeard on the subway who's working over a well-thumbed copy of Atlas Shrugged and in the words of Rand Paul and everything in between. It is a philosophy which comforts those sophomores who are facing the first experience of the complexities of life and relationships and economics. It makes them feel powerful and knowledgeable while infusing them with the most poisonous thing imaginable: certainty . It is a sign of the toxicity of the writings of Ayn Rand that they convince the reader that they never have to go on to read anything else.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tqk · · Score: 1

      think it's becoming increasingly clear that the "John Galt" fiction is one that is doing immeasurable harm to society. Thus, "kill John Galt".

      It is always telling to hear what others think of John Galt. He withdrew his services and abilities, and you hate him for that? That's the entire point of the series! He owes you?!? Hardly!

      "Come on, Mr. Roarke. You can tell me what you think of me."

      "I don't think of you."

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    40. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Most people either grow out of the world-view that they had as undergraduates or refine them to fit the world as it is. Objectivists do neither.

      Oh come on, you're not that stupid. Yeah, there's a lot of blockheads in Randroid circles (just like all other circles). Focus on the ideas, not the personalities. Rand was a nutbar, agreed, as much as was Galileo in his time. Carry on from there!

      Galt just wanted to say, "No, I won't work at that rate. Bye."

      And Objectivists are vilified for that? If you consider such behaviour wrong, then I deem you insane.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    41. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's the entire point of the series! He owes you?!? Hardly!

      "Series"? You're not even talking about the book but some TV series?

      Oh man, sometimes you make a big mistake when you give someone the benefit of the doubt.

      Bad enough that we've got a bunch of overaged undergrads with their Atlas Shrugged, but now we've got a bunch who got their objectivism from a fucking TV show.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    42. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by tqk · · Score: 1

      That's the entire point of the series! He owes you?!? Hardly!

      "Series"? You're not even talking about the book but some TV series?

      Jeez, you don't even have knowledge of what you're complaining about. Start with "We The Living", then "The Fountainhead", then "Atlas Shrugged", toss in her non-fiction writings, then you may have a clue. That's a series. Now, you're just a ranter.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    43. Re:Looks like they'll have my name... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Here's your original statement:

      He withdrew his services and abilities, and you hate him for that? That's the entire point of the series! He owes you?!? Hardly!

      Since John Galt only appears in Atlas Shrugged, how can him withdrawing his services be the point of two novels in which he does not appear?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What fucking right do Sony have to pore through his finances? Surely that's a matter for law enforcement and the courts (I know, naive, right?).

    1. Re:Sony by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since it's a civil suit, law enforcement doesn't really have a right to go through his financial records. There is something called "Discovery" though, where each party in a case can petition the courts to force the other side to turn over pertinent records that they believe could help make their case. Discovery is what gives Sony the right, since they managed to convince a judge that the information there could be constructive to their case.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:Sony by blair1q · · Score: 2

      When you're suing someone, you are law enforcement. You don't have a right to barge in and demand the records, but you can petition the court to allow you access to them.

      Conversely, the defendant here can request a look at all kinds of things Sony might be hiding.

    3. Re:Sony by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It comes from getting the privilege of writing the law.

      They are a big corporation, therefore whatever they say is the law to you. Just be thankful they didn't buy the order to compel everyone who PayPal donated to them to show up in court or be jailed for contempt.

      That $50 could cost a few months worth of pay, while their lawyers depose you with zealous interrogation tactics, until you crack... and by "crack" I mean make a mistake and say something inconsistent, that lets them declare you one and the same as the pirate.

      Who do you think the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was really named after?

    4. Re:Sony by phrostie · · Score: 1

      can geohot ask to see Sony's and the judge's bank records?

      it would be interesting to compare them.

    5. Re:Sony by Moryath · · Score: 2

      Geohot's lawyers should.

      Of course, the judge is probably going to rule that "irrelevant" and deny it. That Sony-logo'ed swimming pool that magically appeared in his backyard is of course completely unrelated to any judicial rulings...

    6. Re:Sony by Nursie · · Score: 1

      They're just using this to try and argue that money came from California, and therefore their crazy insistence that everything be tried there (when Geohot lives and hacks thousands of miles away) must be valid!

      I know it's an oft-trotted out meme, that it's hard to know where an act is committed in a case like this. But to me the answer is easy. It was committed where the guy was sitting at the time.

    7. Re:Sony by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You actually don't need to petition the Court; you can just serve discovery requests and subpoenas. The party you're serving has to go to the Court to get it quashed.

    8. Re:Sony by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      His lawyers can ask for anything, but they won't necessarily get it. Probably any information about Sony's assets will be deemed irrelevant and denied. Certainly anything about the judge's assets will be denied in this trial, and asking for it could land you in some trouble.

      Now, if he loses and appeals and has a plausible claim that the judge was bribed, his lawyers could successfully request the records for the judge's bank accounts.

    9. Re:Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look forward to him getting access to SONY's bank accounts !

      He may wish to use some of the info in his defence !

  3. Simply Put by DontLickJesus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh hell no, they're going to arrange to not only him but anyone he sold to? This man did nothing illegal, and they're going to go after the funds he has made from his work. Sony, rot in hell. I will never buy from you again.

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
    1. Re:Simply Put by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 5, Informative

      you should dig a bit deeper. SCEA is seeking this information in order to argue that the case should be argued in California rather than New Jersey. So far, this has nothing to do with "the funds he has made from his work' -- and it likely never will. As to whether Geoot did anything illegal, that's what the whole case is about... if we're lucky, Geohot will prevail.

    2. Re:Simply Put by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

      This is simply part of the on-going saga to "prove" that California is the correct venue for legal proceedings. The legal atrocities haven't even BEGUN.

    3. Re:Simply Put by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't mean to stop the two minutes hate, but this is being done to determine if California would be an appropriate venue for the lawsuit. The defendant is from New Jersey and obviously wants the case tried there, where as having it there would be more costly for Sony. Sony is arguing that because the defendant may have received money from people residing in the state of California, it would be an appropriate venue. They want the records to see how many people from California sent him money. So far this has nothing to do with charging anyone else and it may be impossible to do with the data they get from this.

      As far as I know, what he did may have been illegal. Circumvention of copyright protection has been illegal in the US, although recently some of these restrictions have been eased. It's possible that in this case the court will decide the laws are unjust or don't apply. That's how the system works. You're stuck with a bad law until it gets repealed or overturned in court.

      In my opinion Sony shot themselves in the foot by removing the other OS feature. I think that really made developers work towards hacking the console more than anything else. To be perfectly honest, there have already been plenty of other reasons not to buy from Sony. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Either way, I'll let you get back to overreacting.

    4. Re:Simply Put by matt_gaia · · Score: 0

      Nah, nothing illegal except breaking the DMCA (which is still, btw, a law). You may not agree with the law, but the fact of the matter is that he willingly broke said law. That, and with what can be construed as extortion with the "you should hire me if you don't want your systems hacked" BS.

      Sony could have handled it a lot better, PR-wise, but they didn't force him to share the keys with the world. At least fail0verflow had the common sense to not make them widely known. When they were discovered. And hey, had GeoHot not run his mouth, you would probably be running your CFW in peace right now.

    5. Re:Simply Put by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...if we're lucky...

      Too late. This should have been thrown out on the first day. It's only because of the corruption that we need luck to deal with something so clear cut.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    6. Re:Simply Put by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      The defendant is from New Jersey and obviously wants the case tried there, where as having it there would be more costly for Sony.

      What do you mean by "more costly for Sony"?
      Sony does business in all 50 States. Getting a team of lawers in/to NJ isn't an issue for them.

      Sony wants this case heard in California because of the favorable Judicial climate there.
      In that sense, allowing the case to be heard in NJ would be costly, but only because it lowers their chances of winning.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Simply Put by jank1887 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you forgot the part where it also becomes unreasonably costly for the defendant. that's to Sony's benefit, as it increases likelihood of a settlement.

    8. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enough people from outside of California go and send Geohot some money, can this be used to sway things? i.e. by making the money received from California constitute such a small percentage of the total money received that no-one could reasonably say that California was a suitable jurisdiction for the trial.

      Though I suppose the paypal account is frozen now.

    9. Re:Simply Put by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      but Geohot did not do circumvention. he reverse-engineered (and borrowed heavily from others' work).

      i think this is a legal grey area that sony is attempting to resolve into a favorable black-and-white.

      Apple haven't gone after jailbreakers yet, have they? MS has benefitted massively from the Kinect hack, and wouldn't dream of chasing those responsible.

      i wonder what it is about sony that make them special?

    10. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple haven't gone after jailbreakers yet, have they?

      Yeah, they did. Until the EFF and the FCC smacked 'em down.

      Donate to the EFF.

    11. Re:Simply Put by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Nope.

    12. Re:Simply Put by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The Librarian of Congress also gave an exemption to the DMCA for some kinds of jailbreaking.

    13. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You disgust me in that you seem to think that the law should be blindly followed. This country would be a much better place if more people had the balls to stand up and openly break the law when warranted. People like you, on the other hand, are the reason authoritarian regimes can persist.

    14. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he didn't circumvent copyright protections. What he did, as far as I understand it, is circumvent the PS3 security that "signs" apps, allowing unsigned code to be run on the machine, and giving him full root access to the processor cores. He rooted the system he owned, just as it is legal to root/jailbreak an iPhone.

      None of this is about copy protection, since it's all about the processor, not the storage medium.

      Yes, Sony believes that they have embedded copy protection at the very lowest levels of their system. However, anyone with a reasonably competent Blu Ray drive can copy a PS3 game. What they *can't* do is run that copy, or more importantly, ANY OTHER UNSIGNED CODE, without Geohotz's hack.

      It's not about copies at all, it's about access protections to a processor embedded inside a piece of electronics which the defendant owns, and Sony attempting to use copyright claims to enforce their hardware lockdown.

    15. Re:Simply Put by Khyber · · Score: 1

      >favorable judicial climate

      You're joking me, right? I beat the FUCK out of EA in California. EULA utterly smashed and forced to be re-written (and recently I heard EA may have voided part of that agreement, too, so I might get a chance to shash them again in the courtroom for breach of contract.)

      EULAs have more often than not been ruled null in favor of a consumer in California. That alone is going to do CONSIDERABLE damage to Sony's case.

      They're actually better off in NJ, which has more corporate-led corruption.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:Simply Put by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Is the Librarianof Congress Hot and Jailbreakable?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:Simply Put by Legal.Troll · · Score: 0

      "you should dig a bit deeper." ... Wow, you mean like actually reading the featured article, instead of just reading the always-misleading Slashdot headline and coming here to make various uninformed rants?

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    18. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mean to stop the two minutes hate, but this is being done to determine if California would be an appropriate venue for the lawsuit. The defendant is from New Jersey and obviously wants the case tried there, where as having it there would be more costly for Sony.

      Why is there even a debate about this? "Multinational corporation sues guy from New Jersey" - why would ANY place other than New Jersey be appropriate? The fact that we're even having this debate shows that something is very wrong with our laws.

    19. Re:Simply Put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the "Someone from the UK read your website so we want the case tried there even though we're from Saudi Arabia and you're American" style of jusrisdiction tourism. Lovely.

    20. Re:Simply Put by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 1

      you should dig a bit deeper. SCEA is seeking this information in order to argue that the case should be argued in California rather than New Jersey. So far, this has nothing to do with "the funds he has made from his work' -- and it likely never will. As to whether Geoot did anything illegal, that's what the whole case is about... if we're lucky, Geohot will prevail.

      And when the MAFIAA types file their John Doe suits against hundreds or thousands, they're just seeking the information required to file proper lawsuits against the copyright infringers. Yeah, right...

      Sony is using the excuse of proving that California is the proper venue to engage in a fishing expedition, in the hopes of netting more people to subject to harassment-by-litigation. Sure, they'd love to keep the Geohot case in California where they have their animatronic simulation of a judge working in their favor, but that's hardly the entire reason for seeking the Paypal info.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    21. Re:Simply Put by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Don't mean to stop the two minutes hate

      Total win.

    22. Re:Simply Put by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      James Billington? No, not particularly.

    23. Re:Simply Put by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Oh hell no, they're going to arrange to not only him but anyone he sold to? This man did nothing illegal, and they're going to go after the funds he has made from his work. Sony, rot in hell. I will never buy from you again.

      It's hard to feel a great deal of sympathy for someone who was doing this as a business.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:Simply Put by DontLickJesus · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point, and so do they. Fist pump the entire way there.

      --
      Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
    25. Re:Simply Put by matt_gaia · · Score: 1

      Why, hello there, Mr. Hyperbole... We've missed you lately. If you want some laws that don't deserve to be on there books, there's this one, as well as as this. But equating breaking copyright protection with dictatorial regimes.... you must be a certain kind of special to make that leap.

  4. Corporate rape by supertrinko · · Score: 2

    The courts are really letting Sony utterly rape everything about GeoHot aren't they? Not commenting on whether or not he deserves it.

    --
    If it rhymes it must be true.
    1. Re:Corporate rape by Moryath · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when the judge is on the corporate payroll.

    2. Re:Corporate rape by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      of course he does. he was blogging provocatively. he dressed all slutty. he invited corporate rape.

    3. Re:Corporate rape by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      unfortunately until we can prove this, it's an uphill battle.

      perhaps someone with strong financial backing could hire some PI's to suss these judges out?

      does FOI law cover the judiciary?

      just imagine what would happen if multiple lawmakers could be explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be in the pockets of sony or some other scumbag company?

      this would have to be separate from campaign contributions, which i have a whole other set of problems with.

    4. Re:Corporate rape by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You are actually accusing Magistrate Judge Spero of illegally receiving money from Sony in exchange for a positive ruling for them? Do you have any evidence for this extraordinary charge? Why have you not gone to the District Attorney or the Chief Judge's office?

    5. Re:Corporate rape by Nursie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not just Geohot.

      There are a variety of others named in the suit, though mostly they are not based in the US and so aren't involved so much.

      However there is also graf_chokolo, who has been thoroughly deconstructing the hypervisor and (unlike geo) publishing his work in a very community-oriented way. The guy's fascinaction is complete control of the PS3 and hypervisor from linux (not piracy).

      A week or so back he was raided by the German police and much of his equipment confiscated. Now he is being sued by Sony for almost a million dollars.

      Please go here and donate if you would like to support the efforts to fend off Sony - http://grafchokolo.com/

      The guy just doesn't have the public profile that geohot does, but he deserves public support every bit as much.

    6. Re:Corporate rape by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      There's no need to pay the judge if the politicians who received your brib...donations have already corrupted the necessary laws for you.

    7. Re:Corporate rape by xtracto · · Score: 2

      Yup, and also fellow slashdotter Marcansoft (from Spain) was named in the lawsuit IIRC.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    8. Re:Corporate rape by Moryath · · Score: 1

      I am saying - the rulings stink. Nothing this joke of a judge does passes the smell test.

      Something else is going on, and I'm willing to bet there is money changing hands to "ensure correct rulings" somewhere.

    9. Re:Corporate rape by kimvette · · Score: 1

      However there is also graf_chokolo, who has been thoroughly deconstructing the hypervisor and (unlike geo) publishing his work in a very community-oriented way.

      I fail to see how this is a problem - last I checked, the DMCA explicitly allows for reverse engineering and for interoperability, which is what this is about - not to mention first sale doctrine issues.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    10. Re:Corporate rape by nomadic · · Score: 1

      That is ridiculous. The ruling is fine. Not everyone you disagree with is corrupt. I can't figure out if you're using hyperbole or if you honestly think that in this specific case a representative of Sony actually transferred money to this specific judge.

    11. Re:Corporate rape by Maestro4k · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this is a problem - last I checked, the DMCA explicitly allows for reverse engineering and for interoperability, which is what this is about - not to mention first sale doctrine issues.

      Namely that the DMCA is a US law and graf_chokolo is in Germany, so the DMCA doesn't cover him.

    12. Re:Corporate rape by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Whether found legal or not, the guy has been raided and is on the wrong end of a million dollar lawsuit, so he could use the help.

    13. Re:Corporate rape by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Indeed, marcan and a bunch of others (kakarotoks IIRC) are named in the geohot lawsuit. graf_chokolo has the privilege of being on the receiving end of a separate suit in germany, hence needing separate representation (and thus funding).

  5. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wish there was a -1 Insightless moderation.

  6. Who's surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If our legal system has allowed Sony to act as they have up until this point, why are we surprised that it would let them go further? (That said, nothing could be better than this case going all the way and ending up in a ruling that is not against GeoHot.)

  7. But it's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because Sony "donated" to the judges bank account, right?

    I am tired of Sony getting their way with pure bribery.

    It is expected with American conglomerates, but Sony is Japanese!

    1. Re:But it's OK by pookemon · · Score: 1

      Yeah - Japanese - They've never done anything evil...!

      WTH is your point exactly? Oh and your tin hat is slipping, my satellite can see you.

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    2. Re:But it's OK by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      He apparently has some kind of romanticized view of Japanese businesses, which is hilarious, given the last hundred years.

    3. Re:But it's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never dropped an atomic bomb an anyone?

    4. Re:But it's OK by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Who, the Japanese? No. They did this one time conduct a long-distance aerial bombardment of a tourist trap, but they were forgiven for that, eventually, after the people they attacked dropped an atomic bomb on them. And there's that business with the death marches and such.

      Currently they're trying to nuke themselves, in between forming chirpy girl groups and dressing up like comic-book characters.

      They're also, per capita, the wealthiest people on the planet.

      Interesting folks.

    5. Re:But it's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they preferred to rape all 300,000 in Nanjing individually, before bayoneting or decapitating them.

    6. Re:But it's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They had plenty of warning and time to not have atomic bombs dropped on them and refused to surrender. Ever hear of the Potsdam Declaration and the Japanese response to it?

    7. Re:But it's OK by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      They never dropped an atomic bomb an anyone?

      Well, in WWII they didn't have any atomic bombs to drop. If they had, I think they would have used 'em.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  8. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot would be a more fun place if you could name your own moderation tag.

  9. Is this a fishing expedition or what? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    What are Sony trying to find out? Surely the legal question is whether or not Geohot had the right to hack a PS3. This can be established without determining who has seen the video, donated money.

    Seems bizarre, and also weird that the judge is letting Sony get away with this. I can only presume that Geohot's lawyers aren't bothering to put up a serious defence because it makes so little difference.

    1. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are two things here.

      1 - Sony wants the case fought in California where their offices are, because it is cheaper and more convenient for them there. It is also more expensive for GeoHot in California, and it less likely he can afford to go to trial. By running him out of legal defense funds and keeping the case in California, they might force him to settle. Unless there is a smoking gun, such as the majority of the donations coming from California, this really shouldn't keep the case there.

      2 - Secondly, Sony wants to sue others, not just GeoHot. They're trying to get info via discovery to do precisely that.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well the easy answer is torch their office in California they aint got no claim then have they tossers like sony need to be played hardball style no nicey nicey pussy footing in first make it count make it hurt make it impossible form to work around .
        but then non of yous ther got the balls to tackle them so what can you expect

    3. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The cost of fighting in CA vs NJ is immaterial for a company like Sony. Corporations use venue shopping all the time to find favorable jurisdictions, and this is almost certainly why they want the case tried in the northern district of CA. This becomes crystal clear when you look at the history of decisions by this particular judge, both in this case and others (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc.).

    4. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Mod parent up! That's exactly why sony is working so hard to keep it with this particular media-friendly judge, who is giving them one heck of a lot more lattitude in discovery than is normal, or even really legal.

      But what you gonna do, take her out back and shoot here (in joke from Groklaw).

      Haven't been a sony customer for either hardware or media in some decades. See no reason to change that now.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    5. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Lead the way, O fearless leader...

    6. Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      This doesn't seem like especially broad latitude in discovery. Discovery is something both sides get, it's fairly broad in federal court, and it is up to the side opposing it to show that it's impermissibly broad.

  10. Sony is dead to me by Sean · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I will never buy anything from them again, and I will do my best to persuade others from doing so.

    1. Re:Sony is dead to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean dissuade. And I direct your attention to my own reason for boycotting Sony, which I have stuck with: http://lik-sang.com/

    2. Re:Sony is dead to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just bought a new 52" LCD TV this week. I didn't even bother to look at what Sony was offering, due to all of this legal horseshit they're pulling. No Sony products for me ever again.

    3. Re:Sony is dead to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but real homebrew guys mess with Texas Instruments' Beagle Board or similar true homebrew system.

      I would not be surprised to see lots of shadowy figures sending money to his PayPal account. By whom, do you think, is he paid to pull this kind of a job? The game black-market guys, not unlikely.. Also do not forget the PS3 is closed payment system, you do not want to mess with such a system, not to mention he is opening the console for other hacks and cheats that might ultimately ruin the fun for everybody. Lots of people prefer walled garden and safe space to play, Sony very much like Apple is only defending their own territory here.

  11. You're kidding me!? by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I donated to this guy to help support his legal fund.
    What the FUCK is the judge doing on this case? Seriously, this is becoming a complete and utter clusterfuck.

    I am a cynical fuck and I'm still surprised, this is just utterly incredible. Geohot has no fucking chance in this, with the way this is being handled.

    Utterly ridiculous, his privacy is just being completely ignored.

    1. Re:You're kidding me!? by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Informative

      They wont have access to your record as the date range Sony is requesting predates his legal fund. I donated $25 to his legal fund. We're both fine.

      I imagine what Sony is doing is trying to prove that his motivations are backed by money or something, and they're going to either find Sony competition or something donating large sums of money to him, or some large piracy groups interested in seeing him succeed, and the judge actually thought it was worth looking into.

      I think this is bogus to be honest. They should focus on the real problem at hand: did he have the right to modify his PS3?

    2. Re:You're kidding me!? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Geohot did something that is probably illegal, and the court is letting the plaintiff discover the facts.

      You sue someone some day, and you'll get the same legal right. And you'll be pissed if you didn't.

    3. Re:You're kidding me!? by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      They should focus on the real problem at hand: did he have the right to modify his PS3?

      Believe me when I say that is absolutely the LAST problem Sony wants considered by the court. Insofar as they are concerned, their EULA expressly forbids such modification, and by coming within 50 feet of a PS3, he agreed to that. There's enough legal precedent for modification that it's possible such things could be permanently eradicated, and if they inadvertently open that Pandora's Box, Sony would be in hot water with all of the copyright holders' associations as well.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    4. Re:You're kidding me!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I'd lead a class suit on that arse on behalf of every honest PS3 owner in the world who has had to waste time downloading updates and had their enjoyment of a console and games they worked hard to pay for utterly ruined by the tool this tool has created.

      You mean all zero of them? It's a tool, it didn't push out a single PS3 update and it didn't ruin a single gamer's enjoyment of their PS3.

    5. Re:You're kidding me!? by DCFusor · · Score: 3, Interesting
      His privacy ain't all -- how about everyone he's ever done business with (paypal) or communicated with, or who even commented on the same blog as he did?

      Way, way, far, out of control. Should be, and probably is, completely illegal for them to do that. Where's the constitution when you need it? Oh....forgot, last few administrations have been using it for toilet paper.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    6. Re:You're kidding me!? by v1 · · Score: 1

      Their eula may have also said he owes them his firstborn. Just because it's in the eula doesn't mean it's enforceable. Too many people have this kneejerk reacction when they hear "eula". And businesses WANT you to believe that of course.

      Look in ANY eula and you will find something along the lines of "and if any part of this is unenforceable, it doesn't affect the enforceability of anything else". That's because all eula are littered with unenforceable agreements. Some points you are agreeing legally to, and others should be taken as more of a "and we really don't want you doing this but can't stop you so we're going to try to scare you into not doing it". The problem is of course sorting them out. If contract law didn't allow that "granular exclusion" they'd stop the scare tactics because they'd have something to lose if you could find something absurd in the eula. But they have nothing to lose and so they do it. (as is so often the reasoning in big business)

      I watched someone get out of a cell phone contract because they changed his unlimited data to limited. They pointed to the contract he'd signed and of course nowhere in the fine print does it remind you that "if one party changes terms of the contract, the other party can void it". They never tell you your rights. They always tell you your limitations, plus a few things they'd like you to do, and call it all part of the "agreement".

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    7. Re:You're kidding me!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony is looking for sources of money to use for repairing the damage to their facilities due to the 9,0 earthquake.

      On a more humorous note, What does it really matter? Who knows... maybe Sony will find some of their employees in there.

    8. Re:You're kidding me!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used an utterly large amount of utters in that cmoment.

      Utter!

    9. Re:You're kidding me!? by zill · · Score: 1

      I donated to this guy to help support his legal fund.

      I hope you didn't use paypal ;)

    10. Re:You're kidding me!? by Professr3 · · Score: 1

      Well, that certainly illustrates the diversity of the word...

    11. Re:You're kidding me!? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I'm not worrying about Sony coming after me, I'm wondering what damn business this has to do with the case? It's just a violation of his rights.

    12. Re:You're kidding me!? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2

      They want the case to be tried in California, where the courts have tended to be favorable to their causes. it's kind of how patent trolls always want to file in a specific (NE?) district in Texas.

      In order for that to happen, the court has to be able to claim jurisdiction meaning, essentially, it has to have something to do with California or the laws of California. They're trolling donations to see if they can establish some link to CA that would let the court claim jurisdiction and have the trial there, despite the fact that Geohot lives in New Jersey.

      I actually tend to agree with you that it is STILL a violation of his rights, however. I shouldn't be able to walk into any court I want and go "you have jurisdiction. Just let me dig through his financial records and I'll tell you how." There should, at the very minimum, be a reasonableness burden of why they believe the court has jurisdiction before lawyers just get to troll through whatever documentation they please.

      Then again there probably is, and it's just something California is also sympathetic to.

    13. Re:You're kidding me!? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      If Sony alleges, as I'm sure they did, that GeoHot conducts business in California in their Complaint, and GeoHot denies it in their Answer (which I assume they did since jurisdiction is an issue), then how else are you going to figure out where GeoHot conducts business rather than look at their records?

    14. Re:You're kidding me!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should focus on the real problem at hand: did he have the right to modify his PS3?

      Why would they focus on that when it's completely irrelevant?

      They're not pursuing him for modifying his PS3, and his claims they are is breathtaking dishonesty and make me hope the book gets thrown at him hard.

    15. Re:You're kidding me!? by oln · · Score: 1

      Far from every western country has laws that prohibit what he did.

    16. Re:You're kidding me!? by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Believe me when I say that is absolutely the LAST problem Sony wants considered by the court. Insofar as they are concerned, their EULA expressly forbids such modification, and by coming within 50 feet of a PS3, he agreed to that.

      Maybe there is an even more fundamental question. The PS3 is a physical piece of hardware which is purchased not rented or licensed. Therefore, from where did Sony obtain the right to (try to) impose an EULA?

    17. Re:You're kidding me!? by tqk · · Score: 1

      On a more humorous note, What does it really matter? Who knows... maybe Sony will find some of their employees in there.

      Ouch.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:You're kidding me!? by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing whether or not EULA's are a good idea, should be enforceable, or any such thing. I am only saying that SONY isn't coming within 50ft of even raising that argument. in their mind the question is settled: does he have a right? NO. U.S. & International law over the past 20 years favors their position.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    19. Re:You're kidding me!? by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      The hardware is more or less useless without software. If he bought a PS3 and NEVER booted it with the standard OS, or clicked through the EULA, it's arguable it's not enforceable. However they have already established that slitting the bottom of the envelope on a CD-ROM so you don't "break this seal" doesn't wash, so it'll probably fall into the same arena.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
  12. Sony is not a neutral party to this case by jonfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sony is not a neutral party to this case. As they are not cops. They have direct involvement into this case. With this a due process is being bypassed and that is illegal in the U.S court system.

    This decision by the judge should be sued or somehow protested by GeoHots lawyers.

    1. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Discovery works both ways. GeoHot also has a right to find out what information Sony has, and how Sony plans to attack him legally.

      Believe it or not, this is fairly normal for our legal system.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then yours and any other legal system like it is garbage. These things should be handled by neutral parties. I mean, sure, even that isn't certain to be out of reach for corrupt people with money, but it decreases that chance at least.

    3. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by yoshac · · Score: 2
      Sony should also be required to show that any PayPal payments received from California residents were for the purposes of the PS3 circumvention.
      i.e. not any other payments to GeoHot, for example relating to other perfectly legal* activities such as iPhone jailbreaks.

      * as defined in sections 2,3 of http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html

    4. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Discovery does work both ways, but the problem is that those that have donated or otherwise given him money during that time period don't have the ability to fight this. We don't know exactly what they're up to, but I wouldn't put it past Sony to find a reason to drag them into it, with or without cause.

    5. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still holding out for a SOoCS to strike and this end up with Sony making a major punitive payout and ruling that Sony needs to actually respect peoples' rights.

      It's a dim hope.

    6. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying Geohot has the right to find out every single person who has contributed to Sony? I want to see those records brought into the case. If it works both ways let's see who's funding Sony's interests in this case. Every single Sony purchase.

    7. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by twidarkling · · Score: 2

      And what, exactly, would the point of "neutral parties" going through the information? Are you going to let them determine what is and is not germane to the defence or prosecution of the case, and only pass along what they deem relevant? While I don't see the point of Sony's move, it is legal, and it's surely not immoral either. Whatever comes after might be immoral though. I'll save my outrage until they start suing people discovered during this inspection.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    8. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They can't drag them into it without cause. You have to put the cause on the piece of paper you use to get the court to do the dragging.

    9. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They just want to find persons in California that has payed to his account so they can say that he got connections to California so the case can be tried there.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    10. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do. They can file a motion for protective order with the court.

    11. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by russotto · · Score: 1

      They just want to find persons in California that has payed to his account so they can say that he got connections to California so the case can be tried there.

      What difference would it make if he did? Does getting money from a California resident through an intermediary give a California Federal Court personal jurisdiction over you? Does it make a court in California the proper venue for a case where the defendant is located in New Jersey?

    12. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      More to the point the information that would be gathered by the subpoena has nothing to do with the core case. Subpoenas given regarding information about third parties cannot be given without informing said third party unless the information is specifically in regards to the core case. This information has nothing to do with GeoHot bypassing copyright protection. This is in reference to Sony getting to keep the case in California, and should not be allowed without giving all third parties notice. At least that seems to be what the EFF is arguing.

      The only reason the judge in this case seems to have allowed it is because the defendant (in this case GeoHot's lawyer) agreed to the subpoena. This is also why the Judge feels that the EFF's filing is moot.

      Either GeoHot has taken to defending himself, or he needs to have a long hard talk with his attorney.

      --
      once more into the breach
    13. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discovery works both ways. GeoHot also has a right to find out what information Sony has, and how Sony plans to attack him legally.

      Believe it or not, this is fairly normal for our legal system.

      Great news for the OtherOS case! We get to read all the internal Sony e-mails in the 6 months leading up to the announcement!! Since all paypal information is handed over, it also means that all e-mails are handed over... juicy!

    14. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by nomadic · · Score: 1

      If GeoHot asks for them, then sure, you may get to see them if they don't get the judge to enter a confidentiality order (in which case GeoHot gets to still see them but the public doesn't).

    15. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by MimeticLie · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant in the current state of the Federal Court system. All that matters is:

      1. Is there a district that is more advantageous to the plaintiff? (Northern California in this case, because of the Judge's history ruling on the DMCA)
      2. Can the plaintiff hire a team of lawyers big enough to out-bullshit the defendant's team of lawyers?

      If the answer to both questions is yes, the trial is probably getting moved. Whether it's a "proper venue" doesn't really come into it.

    16. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      By that reasoning, shouldn't GeoHot's lawyer argue for the case to be tried in Hickfuckistan, AZ because people from there sent him money?

    17. Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "They just want to find persons in California that has payed to his account so they can say that he got connections to California so the case can be tried there."

      I wish there were a way for the people in California that are connected to this to sue the crap out of Sony and the US Gov't.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  13. hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations Sony. Massive Microsoft win.

  14. Re:Shocking! by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    we now know what kind of fool you are, paypal is not a bank

  15. Another case of big corporations raping someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the fact that it got even worse, nothing new here.

  16. Is it too late? by pookemon · · Score: 1

    HD-DVD anyone?

    I really wanted Bluray to win because HD-DVD was from the Microsoft camp. Not that I'm anti-M$, (I'm closer to being Pro-M$ - esp. since I started developing in Netbeans - ew) I just didn't want them to win (for a change). But I've got to say this whole episode makes me think that now I wish it had gone the other way. Someone does something that DOESNT allow piracy, that allows people to have a better chance of using THEIR hardware the way they choose to, and Sony bend him over backwards and rapes him. Sony just doesn't realise that the whole "Warranty is void if jail broken" is incentive enough for most people to not tinker with such things. And for the die hard tinkerers that want to play with this stuff it's a case of a few more people using Sony's product in ways they haven't before. Big deal. But this crap is just making even the staunch Sony fans rethink their allegance...

    Wake up Sony...

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    1. Re:Is it too late? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      You've failed to establish that Sony's license permitted users to use what GeoHot did.

      I'm sure GeoHot will be trying to establish that. But you didn't.

      And unless you or GeoHot can establish that, your argument doesn't hold any merit.

      Sure, turning off formerly-blessed OS functionality is douchey. But if the license permitted Sony to do that and prohibited users from circumventing Sony's code, then tough.

      Unless somehow GeoHot can convince a court to void Sony's license terms. Until then, this is going to look a lot like a court case, including all kinds of legalisticky things like discovery and deposition and idle threats.

    2. Re:Is it too late? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      Ahahahaha. You actually believe that the "License" between users and Sony is actually enforceable.

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    3. Re:Is it too late? by matt_gaia · · Score: 1

      He also failed to mention that while the hardware is yours, the OS (and by extension PSN) still belongs to Sony. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't expect to them to welcome you with open arms. Geohot knew completely well that what he was doing would promote piracy, which is why fail0verflow was relatively mum on the whole issue.

    4. Re:Is it too late? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Informative

      You might want to read the plain-text court transcripts on this case over at www.groklaw.net. PJ's work there is commendable, and the actual court transcripts are there to back up what she says.

      The license really didn't permit Sony to do that.

      The class-action suit against Sony regarding removal of OtherOS, and whether their license actually did permit that behaviour, or whether their use of warranty to claim the right, makes for some truly fascinating reading (I read the lot yesterday). I'd suggest popcorn, at the very least.

      It's one hell of a class-action suit against Sony and it does not paint them in a particularly favourable light. What's more, the outcome of that case may well directly affect that of their case against GeoHot. Is it illegal to circumvent an illegal action, or is it self-defense? Tune into Groklaw. As the news arrives, you'll find the court transcripts there. That stuff's definitive, not mere opinion.

      Look for "The Sony Class Action's First Amended Complaint, as text - Updated"

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:Is it too late? by zill · · Score: 1

      If you honestly think that shrink wrap licenses are valid (or even remotely reasonable), then please enjoy a joke.

    6. Re:Is it too late? by Confusador · · Score: 1

      So far it looks like he's taking a different tack, and arguing that the terms of the license are irrelevant since he never did anything that would require him to agree to them. Your point stands, regardless.

    7. Re:Is it too late? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      What's more, the outcome of that case may well directly affect that of their case against GeoHot. Is it illegal to circumvent an illegal action, or is it self-defense?

      I am not sure, but this is probably the key to this whole thing. There are however a few complications:

      1) GeoHot was not only interested in the OtherOS feature. When he published the root keys for the PS3 he slightly overstepped what was needed to get the OtherOS feature back and was really going a bit too far in the direction of enabling software piracy. He later removed the keys but from what I remember there was no need to publish them at all, the other keys failOverflow released did everything apart from allow a PS3 to run a pirated PS3 game.

      2) The DMCA is a terrible law. It would not surprise me if even though Sony may well lose the class action suit GeoHot will still have been guilty of breaching the DMCA

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    8. Re:Is it too late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my hardware. fuck sony and this so called "license.

    9. Re:Is it too late? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      3) two wrongs don't make a right.

      GeoHot should have waited to see if the suit against Sony prevailed. Breaking into their code in violation of his license is likely an illegal act that can get him in trouble even if he did it to get back a right he thinks he had.

    10. Re:Is it too late? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Strange codocils in shrink-wrap licensing are likely not enforceable (the court will deal with them as they come).

      But the general principle that you're not allowed to break reasonable terms of a license, even if you don't read it, will be upheld.

    11. Re:Is it too late? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Taking possession of a copy of their code is agreement enough.

    12. Re:Is it too late? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      3) two wrongs don't make a right.

      GeoHot should have waited to see if the suit against Sony prevailed. Breaking into their code in violation of his license is likely an illegal act that can get him in trouble even if he did it to get back a right he thinks he had.

      Personally I think you are spot on with this, but the wheels of justice turn far too slowly for the likes of some.

      Chances are that by the time this was finalised by the courts the PS3 will be consigned to the scrapheap of history and been superceeded by the PS4. For many people allowing Sony to prevent them doing something when they want to do it is not an option so breaking the law is the only one left. This is especially true of young gifted hackers like Mr Hotz, patience is usually something that comes more with age.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  17. Re:Shocking! by TheyTookOurJobs · · Score: 1

    paypal is not a bank

    They certainly try to act like one when it suits them!

  18. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think "-10 Blatant Moron" would be quite popular.

  19. Time for encrypted currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's time for an encrypted flying-dutchman currency exchange.

    1. Re:Time for encrypted currency by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's not possible to transact electronic currency outside the normal banking system (PayPal's own bank account suffices as its inside avatar).

      You can't just throw bits with ascii '$' codes at banks' modem ports and expect them to know from whom to debit the credit you're trying to deposit.

      To make it work, you'd have to hack the banks, or the clearinghouses.

    2. Re:Time for encrypted currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of BitCoin?

      Basically the idea is, if I withdraw money from my bank as cash, then hand that cash to GeoHot, there's no paper trail. (Maybe even more accurately, I buy gold and send him the gold, so nobody can trace the serial numbers on the dollar notes.) What we need/want is an electronic cash equivalent. Something like BitCoin, where I would buy bitcoins with my dollars (using paypal, a check against my bank account, or whatever), then send the bitcoins to GeoHot, then he sells them for dollars. The key element is this is not a transaction between my bank and his bank, possibly mediated by e.g. paypal, but an actual currency equivalent in the middle. And the banks/paypal don't need any particular complicity, they just handle payments to buy and sell this alternate currency same as buying and selling any other good.

      AIUI, Bitcoin itself actually doesn't work for this, because all transactions are broadcast on a P2P network, so anyone could watch all transactions, and see that the bitcoins I bought are the ones that got transferred to GeoHot. (There's no "BitCoin Inc." for Sony to subpoena documents from, but there are/could be businesses whose sole purpose is to log all BitCoin transactions and sell the info to anyone who wants it later.) For an electronic currency to be properly untraceable, it must in fact be stealable -- if there's no way of tracking it, there's no way of proving I own it if someone else gets on my computer, copies, and spends my e-currency. I don't know of such a system in existence, perhaps because nobody thinks "stealable" is a design criterion, much less an advertising point.

      Of course, if such a system does develop, about the time it becomes widespread enough to be useful, expect congress to pass an "anti-money-laundering" law to effectively ban it and/or paypal to explicitly forbid it in their TOS, the same way they restrict nicotine vaporizers, laser pointers over 5mW, and everything else that (one presumes) certain entities in government ask in exchange for leaving their bank-that's-not-regulated-as-a-bank status alone.

    3. Re:Time for encrypted currency by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It's not possible to transact electronic currency outside the normal banking system"

      Your database is outdated by about 8 years. I suggest you go find the nearest update repository and get current.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Time for encrypted currency by blair1q · · Score: 1

      There's a paper trail. Bitcoin has to know you have the money and they have to know that your money became GeoHot's money, otherwise they have no way to know that you had that much to give to GeoHot.

      The only way to make it such that it couldn't be labeled with you as sender and him as receiver is if it has a unique identifier for each unit of the smallest units it could be divided into.

      But then the identifier can be tracked. See "Where's George" for an example.

      But BitCoin doesn't work without the banking system. Their bank account exists, and the virtual scrip they create consists of user deposits.

  20. Cyberpunk by improfane · · Score: 0

    Soon public opinion of programmers and engineers will be portrayed as suspicious. I would not be surprised that in a few years in the US or in the UK that opening hardware up is grounds for terrorism investigations.

    I look forward to our new government/corporately owned network infrastructure. We'll be the last remnants of the free society who refuse to be dominated by abuses of technology...

    If you're a computer geek and you write abuseive software for/on behalf of companies like Sony, you should be so ashamed. Intellectual dishonesty to the extremes.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
    1. Re:Cyberpunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon public opinion of programmers and engineers will be portrayed as suspicious. I would not be surprised that in a few years in the US or in the UK that opening hardware up is grounds for terrorism investigations.

      Only if you don't have state-issued "license" to do so... Don't think it won't happen, right now in some places the state requires a license for you to even be a floral arranger.

      If you're a computer geek and you write abuseive software for/on behalf of companies like Sony, you should be so ashamed. Intellectual dishonesty to the extremes.

      I'm willing to forgive those who write software for abusive companies, but only if they have the courage to quit.

    2. Re:Cyberpunk by tqk · · Score: 1

      If you're a computer geek and you write abusive software for/on behalf of companies like Sony, you should be so ashamed. Intellectual dishonesty to the extremes.

      Uh, no, it's not that easy. I've worked in Sudan ripping out Windows (US high-tech export regulations said so), and for ExxonMobil (so their employees could continue to secure the network). We're most often very small cogs in very large and complicated machines. I don't consider myself damned for all time for implementing a system that incidentally made Sudan's Bashir more rich. I had no control over that. I hope I helped the Sudanese, and line ExxonMobil employees, do their jobs easier.

      Affixing things like morality and ethics onto corporations is the wrong way to go. They're affected by the law and their customers; nothing else. Morality and ethics become irrelevant once it's a corp. you're talking about, no matter how much the corp. may sputter about its "corporate responsibility." They're only slightly persons (under the law), not really living people. Ethics and morality don't apply, except as markers to the public perception of said corp.

      I think I own a few Sony cassette tapes from a decade or so ago. Nothing else I can see around here has their brand on it. Interesting story, though. Why Sony's getting away with this !@#$ is a mystery. Yeah, discovery's just discovery. Why's George in trouble in the first place, I wonder. Very weird watching Sony get away with this persecution.

      "Do I not own that PS3?"

      "To a point, ..."

      "What?!?"

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  21. It takes a lot... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

    ...for me to actively wish bodily harm upon someone. That magistrate is on thin ice.

  22. Re:Shocking! by blair1q · · Score: 0

    The most popular is the -1 Checked the Anonymous Coward Box As If Anyone Gave A Shit About Their Cleartext Handle one.

  23. Re:Shocking! by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It is in Luxembourg.

    Regardless, financial records is financial records. If the court says Sony can look as part of discovery, then that's what they can do.

  24. This has to stop by U8MyData · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I looked, you *buy* equipment, not rent it. It's like a car company telling you you can't put the latest glass pack exhaust system on your car, those shinny spinning rims, or ground effects because it isn't in the EUDA (End-User Driving Agreement). Or worse yet, what about making improvements to your house, oops, I mean the bank's house. Where does this stop? If you buy it you buy it unless they specifically want to come out and say what they appear to really mean, you don't own anything. One sure way to crater the economy further is to take away peoples rights to personal property. All in the name of "unrealized" or unearned profits. I wish I could do that :S...

    1. Re:This has to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You rent it! Also, you misunderstand. It's not wrong if you tinker with your own property. It's only wrong if you tell others how to tinker with their own property in ways that could be 'abused'!

    2. Re:This has to stop by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Sony is essentially saying that the key is a copyright circumvention device. (No need to argue that point, I disagree too) They may be making other claims as well in that general direction but I'm too tired to go over this crap again.

      This isn't about him modifying his own stuff. It's about him sharing the information so others can do what he did.

    3. Re:This has to stop by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Except that this is a Sony brand vehicle, which is used exclusively for Sony brand racetracks, and Sony brand racetracks don't allow you to add a turbo if you want to race on Sony's racetrack. Geohot has diseminated information on how to build your own racetrack, for free, in your backyard, without taking up space, while reformulating Sony brand fuel, Sony brand tires, Sony brand engines, and Sony brand track fee/repair, all while still driving on Sony brand track against others who pay their fees because they enjoy the social experience (for the slow people, the racetrack is the console, the car is the game).

      As for improvements to your house in which you have financed the payment with a mortgage, the bank does, in fact, own the house until you have paid every penny. If the bank mortgage contract says you have to keep the house the same color as every other house on the block, tough nuggets. When you go ahead and change the paint color, the bank may foreclose and make you repay for damages, if that is stipulated to in your mortgage agreement. If you have oceanfront property and your local homeowners agreement says 'don't build a jetty' and you go ahead and do it to keep your front deck from getting wet at high tide, you will be personally liable for all the dead on your neighbor(s)'s property from the resulting red tide (ok that example is a bit out there, but you should get the point).

    4. Re:This has to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, all points taken. I guess my main argument is that the little guy has nothing but the mercy of the system. Innovation is based closely on reverse engineering in a very direct way of thinking. If we are not, or cannot, tinker, f*ck, play, share our findings then where are we? At the mercy of those who have much more than us, those who have the lawyers, and appearently those who have the ear of the judge (who ever the hell that is). Individual rights are being dismissed here, no two ways about it. Sorry.

    5. Re:This has to stop by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Geohot has the same rights that Sony does, no rights have been dismissed, trampled upon, or infringed, at least not unless Geohot loses the case and a court of law finds him guilty of having done so to Sony.

      Lets say that you are a mechanic that only works on specific models of high end vehicles. You receive information from someone about how to modify vehicles such that it voids the warranty, but not in such a way that Porsche can find out (yet it actually affects warranty costs for Porsche). Even if it doesn't affect Porsche, it migh make the cars no longer street legal, which means your clients get better mileage but can't drive it on a public road. When the person who gave away the information on how to illegally mod the Porsche gets sued, and you donated to his legal defense fund, and a judge wants a list of all the cars your mechanic's shop has worked on so they can figure out what state holds jurisdiction for the lawsuit, your rights have not been dismissed, rather the rights of the public welfare have been upheld.

      Innovation, however, is what happens when you introduce something new, not when you reverse engineer from something old. That would be called a reformulation, or an upgrade, and would generally require R&D or licensing, and for damn good reason.

    6. Re:This has to stop by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny to me. In the 1950's we feared the "commies" and their lack of respect for property and ownership rights, but in the end it's the capitalists who are actually managing to strip those rights bit by bit (for everyone but themselves, that is).

    7. Re:This has to stop by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Please don't confuse capitalism with corporatism. The very fact that the Government would dictate or allow someone else to dictate what someone can and cannot do with his/her own property goes against one of the basic tenets of free-market capitalism. In a true capitalist system, Sony wouldn't be able to take legal action against modchip manufacturers.

      "Intellectual property" is another concept that is falsely attributed to capitalism. The government should never enforce monopolies, especially over ideas.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    8. Re:This has to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could not have said it any better. Ty...

    9. Re:This has to stop by sjames · · Score: 1

      Any capitalism that allows corporate charters at all will eventually devolve into corporatism. Otherwise, without adequate regulation, it will devolve into something very much like feudalism. Intellectual Property is orthogonal to economic system, but can contribute to problems.

    10. Re:This has to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in the United States of America (at least some states), it's quite unlawful to muck about with your car just however you want to. After-market add-ons are one thing (and not all of them are legal either), but I believe that, for example, tampering with the emissions-control system is a nono. Do so at the risk of failing inspection and having your registration revoked.

      Granted this isn't Ford or GMC saying no, but it does mean that I am not free to do whatever I please to the car I purchased (if I still want to drive it around on public thoroughfares).

    11. Re:This has to stop by tqk · · Score: 1

      This isn't about him modifying his own stuff. It's about him sharing the information so others can do what he did.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...

      Er, ... It appears something's broken.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:This has to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for bonus giggles: actual property rights are violated in favor of imaginary property rights. Sony's using copyright law after all to go after Geohotz.

  25. bestes creatin by calzone1 · · Score: 1

    everybody can touch this !

  26. countdown to public backlash? by Phizzle · · Score: 2

    How long do you think it will take before someone like 4chan goes after SONY and slams every one of their products, stores and services with negative ratings across the Amazon, Yelp, Google Products, etc landscape?

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:countdown to public backlash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, public backlash. Anyone supporting geohot's jailbreak should stop buying the tons of game they were purchasing before. Sony won't know what him them.

    2. Re:countdown to public backlash? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Sony won't know what him them.

      A speck of dust landing on your sleeve is not very painful.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:countdown to public backlash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already attack PSN with LOIC. However, PSN has several gateways and is quite resilient, so I understand their usual tactic isn't as effective as it would be against a single IP. They may take down one or two, but the rest pick up the slack.

  27. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing /. coders you'd cause a buffer overflow and crash the server for days.

  28. remote possibility by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

    It's possible that the judge wants sony to find a good, solid reason to keep it in CA, so that he can rule against them later on. If he shines it on to NJ, he loses control of the case.

  29. Re:Shocking! by somersault · · Score: 1

    Hamm would probably be a bank in Luxembourg..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  30. PayPal by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If that cash went through a real bank, would the outcome be the same?
    PayPal's weird semi-bank-state allows for legal action I never heard of otherwise.

    1. Re:PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It has nothing to do with Paypal. You can do the same thing with a real bank.

    2. Re:PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal discovery accesses people's bank records all the time. It's nothing unique about Paypal.

    3. Re:PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but I think he should have went a step further, as even "real banks" are always more-than-eager to infringe on your privacy, as long as you're anything less than filthy rich.

      If Hotz was using Bitcoin (instead of PayPal) to accept donations, it would be technically impossible for Sony to trace any financial transactions back to California (even if they somehow "stole" his digital wallet, containing his credentials/private keys).

      tl;dr: if you're receiving money (even if it's donations) and you're doing something that could be considered somewhat illegal or immoral, use Bitcoin or Webmoney.ru (or whatever it is botnet herders use these days). Also, in general, avoid using PayPal.

  31. It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh hell no, they're going to arrange to not only him but anyone he sold to? This man did nothing illegal, and they're going to go after the funds he has made from his work. Sony, rot in hell. I will never buy from you again.

    Your sentiments are appropriate; I've also been involved in negative word-of-mouth advertising for Sony. Pass the word.

    However, this is Sony's effort to prove GeoHot did business in California, where Sony wants the case held. Fishing? Perhaps a bit of that too, I wouldn't put it past them.

    The real story, however, is the class action suit (CAS) against Sony for their removal of the OtherOS functionality in update 3.2.1. This is the update that GeoHot's mod reversed.

    It's clear to me that Sony wants to muddy the waters as much as possible. The lawsuit is an absolute monster, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to re-brand afterwards. Look to Groklaw.net for clarity, there's a huge amount of detail there.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've also been involved in negative word-of-mouth advertising for Sony. Pass the word.

      *sigh* This BS never ends.

      I can assure you that you will have NO effect on Sony, and even less on the personal fortunes of those who make these decisions untl

      1) You zero out all your personal debts
      2) Remove all your money from the bank. As long as it remains there, Sony gets a piece of it. And to be sure, they probably own a piece of your debt also

      This is the only way you can effect their entire portfolio. It applies to everybody in the system..

      This is nuts. First article screams, boycott! boycott!.. The next article says, "You gotta see Avatar in 3D.. It's sooo cool."

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      i'm not following you.

      what stake do sony have in our collective debts?

      the only things i've bought with a sony branding on them in the last 10 years has been digital betacam tapes. i could switch to maxell or fuji, but i'd have to get them from interstate. also, i doubt that represents a huge chunk of their revenue stream.

    3. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Your notes are traded on Wall Street like everything else. Your debt is their currency. Your entire bank account is. The bank only keeps enough petty cash around to get through the day's local transactions (the ATMs and tellers)

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's more a matter of venue shopping and trying to drive the legal costs to the defendant high enough that he is forced to give up.

    5. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ man, how big do you think SONY is? They aren't fucking Gods or anything, they're just a bunch of assholes trying to assume control over you and I. Well,I mean, it looks like they've already got you, but then you'll probably cower behind whoever prevails, in these attacks.
      Fuck SONY. Fuck 'em straight to hell. You're damn right it has an effect. I have my minuscule effect, my neighbor has his, my brother has his. No single customer is going to touch SONY significantly, but they've humped too many customers too hard, and there is a consequence to it.
      Fuck SONY. They need to be driven back under the rock they crawled out from.

    6. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by Silentknyght · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that you will have NO effect on Sony, and even less on the personal fortunes of those who make these decisions

      Look what bad PR did for Toyota. And, in that case, it was (since latest findings indicate there were no actual problems) bad PR alone. It can work wonders, it just needs to reach critical mass and get some publicity. So, to the GP, keep spreading the "good" word.

    7. Re:It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Their will always be setbacks... But despite all the bad press over thousands of years, little has changed. One corp dies, another arises from it. Same people, same thought process, different name is all.

      Take your money out. You will see real results very quickly. It will contribute much more to *teh cause*. And you can still go see your favorite movie guilt free

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  32. Re:Where's . . . by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Try that again, only this time without equating the deaths of thousands of Sony employees with the inability of some pimply suburban kid to surf for pr0n and warez on his game console...

  33. Whats the email account? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    I want to send some more money to him but to the account they are trying to get records for. Maybe if we get 1000's of people donating a few cents it'll make it a pain in the ass for Sony.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  34. You guys are hillarious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its funny to me waching everyone here give their armchair legal advice as if they were a member of the supreme court and spent their lives studying america law. All you guys saying this and saying like your actual lawyers or judges is damned hillarious. Fact of the matter is 90% of you dont even have a clue what your saying, it just sounds plauseable and reasonable in your head so your passing it off as actual legal banter that is fact.

    The rest of you are just jumping on the bandwagon mentality that sony is the big bad evil corporation suing someone for nothing, they are bending the law and basically hitler incarnate in lawyer form. You guys are worse just because your on the bandwagon for hating sony since its the cool thing to do now. Everytime someone is big and lots of people love them its only a matter of time before those people turn on what they once loved and look for any petty excuse to come up with any desperate reason to out them. Its also fashionable to hate the big corporation for no other reason than being a big corporation.

    1. Re:You guys are hillarious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF ?

    2. Re:You guys are hillarious. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

      ...Everytime someone is big and lots of people love them...

      Woooo! Astroturf and Godwin Too!!

      Think it'll work?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    3. Re:You guys are hillarious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at Mettalica's popularity since bringing down Napster. Pretty much speaks for itself.

    4. Re:You guys are hillarious. by BattleApple · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
      - Thomas Hesse, President of Sony Music Entertainment's Global Digital Business, US Sales, and Corporate Strategy.

  35. My cotton swab argument by White+Flame · · Score: 1

    The box says "Do not insert into ear canal". Should everybody who uses one to remove earwax have legal action taken against them?

  36. Re:Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we now know what kind of fool you are, paypal is not a bank

    Yeah, the kind of fool who doesn't waste time quibbling over pedantry?

    If you insist on a change to "financial records" then ok, go for it. Consider it edited.

    Oh wait, that's not foolish at all.

    You're the fool trying to make a big deal out of nothing.

  37. Re:Whats the email account? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony only has rights to look up until February 1st 2011. Adding 1000's of ppl donating pennies wouldn't accomplish shit to cause a PITA for them.

    Read before you write.

  38. Haven't bought Sony in a while... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...continue to recommend to my clients to never buy it.

    Lol sony... you're missing out. Nerds are trusted by many for technical advice. Piss off enough nerds, and they stop recommending your product. Some to very large customers.

  39. We're not helping his cause by doing this... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Now that we have placed the email address geohot@gmail.com on the front page of slashdot, all 12 people who still read this site - and many, many, many, more bots that automatically scan it - have seen it. That poor email address is about to be so inundated with spam that its rightful owner will never be able to read anything on it again.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:We're not helping his cause by doing this... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Now that we have placed the email address geohot@gmail.com on the front page of slashdot, all 12 people who still read this site - and many, many, many, more bots that automatically scan it - have seen it. That poor email address is about to be so inundated with spam that its rightful owner will never be able to read anything on it again.

      Which should be quite amusing when Sony gets around to doing discovery on it.

  40. Re:Where's . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so much more fun thinking the mass deaths by natural disasters of Sony assholes.

    Fuck the humanitarian/Christian "love everyone" bullshit. And fuck Sony, the company.

  41. Venu shopping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You missed the main reason that Sony wants the case tried in California. The Federal circuit in California is far more sympathetic to copyright claims than the one in New Jersey. If Sony can keep the case in California, they'll have a much better chance of prevailing.

  42. That's a legal conclusion by pem · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's up to the court to decide if he broke a law. IMHO, he didn't -- there are several different exemptions in the DMCA, each of which should cover what he did.

    But first, they have to decide if California is the right place to decide that. Unfortunately, it looks like Illston and Spero are in Sony's pocket on that one.

    1. Re:That's a legal conclusion by matt_gaia · · Score: 0

      Well, your humble opinion is wrong. There are exemptions for certain devices (e.g. mobile phones), none of which covering consoles. So, being that he knowingly distibuted a way to circumvent the security on the ps3, he broke the law, and is paying the consequences.

    2. Re:That's a legal conclusion by Reformed+Lurker · · Score: 1

      So I can hook up my iPad to my TV to play a game, and if I jailbreak it - that's ok. But if I hook up a PS3 to my TV and (essentially) jailbreak it, that's illegal?

      I think Sony's arguments may wind up being a year too late....

    3. Re:That's a legal conclusion by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The iPad isn't a mobile phone either. However, if you change your argument to "iPhone", then yes. The exemptions generally aren't for broad classes of behavior, but specific behaviors. There's one exemption for circumventing DRM for PC video games for the purposes of security research (which was granted because of the requests of a single individual).

    4. Re:That's a legal conclusion by matt_gaia · · Score: 1

      No, simply jail-breaking your PS3 isn't illegal (nor should it be). You will be banned from PSN if you bring that machine anywhere near their network, which is a legitimate recourse for Sony to take. But if you go out and tell the world how to break the security, which Geohot and a few others and as of now is illegal, you better have some good lawyers. This is no different then the DeCSS debacle from last decade.

  43. GAH by goldcd · · Score: 1

    If only they'd left the closing date open - we could all have donated $1, along with a lovely little message for Sony, to go into the court records :(

    1. Re:GAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should create an email address that contains the key and use that instead of your normal e-mail address... make them put it in the public record if they want to go after you.

  44. Surely he should petition by goldcd · · Score: 1

    for Sony's encryption key?

    1. Re:Surely he should petition by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      for Sony's encryption key?

      You jest, but how can they claim he infringed their property without disclosing what said property is? It would be like me claiming that Sony is using a huge swath of code they stole from me (protected by encryption & therefore DMCA), but not producing the code that I claim they stole for comparison...

      Well, not really, but it's fun to think that way -- Sony will just claim: He's broken the DMCA, we don't have to disclose our actual keys. At which point I would hope that a sane court would rule his DMCA violation a fair use, and recommend there be an exemption for game systems, and other closed hardware devices (such as tivos)...

      We have a phone unlock exemption... Smart phones are essentially portable computers. Game systems are essentially computers as well... I might want to use my phone on a different carrier -- I might want to use my playstation on a different network other than PSN... Oh well... Golden rule and all that jazz, Sony has big $$, they will probably win, legality and loss of civil rights be damed.

    2. Re:Surely he should petition by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The key's already been published, it's harmless for them to show that it's correct. It's also sufficient for them to simply show that the published key works, they don't need to show that it's the same as theirs.

    3. Re:Surely he should petition by blair1q · · Score: 1

      In fact, one of the first things they'll establish (and probably have it stipulated rather than made evident in court) is that he did get the key right.

  45. You mean a real bank, like the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know when I send money, it's in the form of silver or gold measured in grains or ounces.
    Paper currency is a warehouse receipt, while Paper money (not currency) is a tax deduction directed by a government.
    Figure that one out, as I said it; do you want to hold un-redeemed currency pointing to property held in storage, do you want a tax deduction, or do you want a measure of property dispensed in your hand with no strings attached?
    Gold and Silver are only a measure; you can use anything, but sending it through the mail is when it gets metered and journaled like it could be titled for use as currency to be regulated, so consider hand-shake transactions to 1-way drop-shipments.

    Without the Federal Reserve, places like Wells Fargo and Bank Of America and PayPal can't survive: even the corporate banks proved they will violate Security Despot Boxes to help foreign agents of the IMF (IRS) to harvest Americans to support land-development investment of international bankers on 3rd-world countries.

  46. Re:Whats the email account? by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

    They want all the "3. Documents reproducing all records of IP addresses that have accessed or downloaded files hosted using your service and associated with the www.geohot.com website, including but not limited to the "geohot.com/jailbreak.zip" file, from January 1, 2009 to the present,."

    So Slashdot/LOIC the site like crazy and send a copy of each ip log entry, individually, to SCEA via email/twitter/facebook wallposts.

  47. Help your country instead of suing people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Help your country instead of suing people, seriously thousands/millions of dollars for grilling a geeky kid.

    Mo Fos

    1. Re:Help your country instead of suing people by bronney · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it AC. But you have to forgive Sony. I know their little scheme in this move. They are looking into geohot's paypal to find out how willing are the geek to donate money, grab our emails, then send us some flyers to donate to their earthquake fund.

      Seriously, I am wondering if Sony is helping the country at this moment.

  48. Re:Shocking! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

    Wait...I thought PayPal *wasn't* a bank unless you were in the EU, which was what let them get away with some of the shit they pull?

  49. Re:Whats the email account? by znerk · · Score: 1

    At this time, Sony only has rights to look up until February 1st 2011.

    FTFY

    --
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
  50. GeoHot doesn't just crack PS3's by ktappe · · Score: 1
    GeoHot is also well known for jailbreaking the iPhone. So how exactly is Sony going to distinguish between PS3 donations and iPhone donations?

    Perhaps Sony knows there are more iPhones per capita in CA than any other state and could be using the confusion to sway the court.

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  51. Just wondering by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Who here is "against Sony's actions" while at the same time own any Sony equipment... especially a PS3?

    I gotta tell you, I started hating Sony long ago and it played a role in my decision not to own anything Sony. And as the years went by, my feelings about Sony were only reinforced.

    But I wonder about you people out there hating Sony too, but at the same time buying their stuff.

    1. Re:Just wondering by bravo_2_0 · · Score: 1

      As my Sony equipment has been dying I've been replacing it with non-Sony stuff. I've avoided their music arm ever since the whole root kit debacle and I absolutely refuse to buy the PS3 even though I really, really want to play Slam Bolt Scrappers. I really can't envision a situation where I would buy a Sony product again.

      --
      I AM A SEXY SHOELESS GOD OF WAR!!!
    2. Re:Just wondering by tqk · · Score: 1

      But I wonder about you people out there hating Sony too, but at the same time buying their stuff.

      I don't think I own anything Sony branded besides a few old cassette tapes.

      I do find the whole situation fascinating though. I hope sensibility prevails, this judge gets their walking papers, George goes onto writing a best seller, Sony gets bought out by Oracle or HP, ... Heh, heh, heh, ...

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  52. Re:Whats the email account? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A penny every hour? No skin off my nose, and if millions of people do it, F*CK SONY, but there is that whole problem with the subpoenaed date range.

  53. I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't be surprised if they really find something. Sony competitors where very interested in what he did and I really doubt they didn't have money in it. Even if I would liked him to have my Other OS back, I don't think this story is about it anymore.

  54. As Gandhi once said - by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:As Gandhi once said - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you die... Mister Bond

    2. Re:As Gandhi once said - by qbast · · Score: 1

      First they ignore you, then they continue to ignore you, then everybody ignores you. You don't even lose - you are just irrelevant.

  55. EULA is a contract. EULA attempts to restrain... by Whomp-Ass · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Title 15, Chapter 1 captures most of Sony, RIAA, MPAA, behavior and declares it illegal with a $100,00,000.00 Fine. Hell, most mega-corps are guilty in some way of violating Title 15.1

    TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > Â 1

    Â 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

    Â 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
    Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

    Â 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
    It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

  56. Re:Shocking! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Hamm is a quarter in eastern Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg. It is the home of the Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial, the final resting place of 5,076 American servicemen, including General Patton."

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hamm,_Luxembourg

  57. Re:Shocking! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    So you're saying you think that no American can transfer funds to and from any of the other 194 countries because they are foreign?
    They are a bank here in Luxembourg and do business on the whole planet, just like any other bank.
    Also Luxembourg still has bank secrecy and I doubt that they will give details to a foreign state (the US) in a civil case.
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bank_secrecy

  58. Re:Shocking! by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 2

    I disagree AC is not a fool. Hes a complete idiot.
    The first step to wisdom is calling a thing by its correct name.
    And yes it is important. If paypal is not a bank, then its not a damn bank. PERIOD.
    Paypal can get away with a lot more than a bank can.
    How many times have you heard of Paypal freezing someones account *and all of the $$$ in it?
    How many times have you ever heard of a bank doing that? With out a court order??
    Just because you don't think the facts matter don't try to put down the rest of us who do.

  59. Re:Shocking! by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't see the problem with this AC you are a major dumbass. The Paypal account was being used to help his defense and now those people can be harassed by Sony. Imagine if those that donated to Manning's defense get put on a terror watchlist? After all Manning "aided terrorists" and Wikileaks is a "terrorist organization" according to some of our more clueless congressmen, so if judges are allowed to hand out lists of who has donated to a defense to the other side you have just killed ANY chance of a non rich person getting a fair trial.

    The whole damned point of setting up these Paypal accounts is to give those who cannot afford a defense a chance to fight back against the rich and powerful. if you start handing out lists of everyone that donated you have created a chilling effect that will ensure others in the future won't get enough donations to buy a stick of gum.Sadly in the USA no money means no defense, as I wouldn't let a public pretender defend my dog, and in civil cases you don't even get that. So handing out donation lists is a BAD IDEA and shouldn't be allowed, okay AC?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  60. Open up PayPal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to donate; if only to have my name on the list. Let Sony know that I support GeoHot.

  61. PrisonPal by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    OK, it looks like he's using JPay (which I just learned about 5min ago): "Americaâ(TM)s Trusted Inmate Money Transfer Service"

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  62. the people aren't required to document a tx/rx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people aren't really required to document a transfer or reception, because that would indoctrinate them into the titular Torens system where requires Articles of Association to liquidate their assets as debt securities in a secondary mode of conduct just to build evidence of their having a Secured Party Creditor standing to all suits.

    That's the difference between a Republic and a Demockery, where the Bearer instruments have no indorsement other than self-evidence of a holder in due course like how whomever is riding a bicycle is the holder in due course of that property; the limit to when someone indoctrinates into a Torrens system of legal jurisdprudence is established at $20 for all suits in common law but I can't remember what exact Amendment that was enumerated by the Bill of Rights from Thomas Jefferson. Anyone? Furthermore, that Torrens system was began at the value of all disputes when $20 was Gold or Silver, so that means by US "dollars" to be what might be more like between $5000 to $50k depending on the ratio of US dollars from the Federal Reserve System in relation to the market value of Gold or Silver at the time the dispute occurred.

    Wonderful...

  63. What are you whining about? by Otis_INF · · Score: 1

    Sony's stuff has been actively hacked by a couple of people. The legal team of Sony gets the order to stop this so they do their job and Sony, if you like it or not, tries to protect what they think is theirs.

    The hackers knew this could happen, and they thought it would blow over. Well, they made a miscalculation. Boohoo.

    And please. all the whining about 'oh this is so bad!', no it isn't. It has nothing to do with you nor any other consumer who buys the product for what's it suppose to do, nor will this lawsuit affect your life in any way.

    That you now will never purchase a sony product again... where have we heard that before? Oh that's right. The CoD boycott. Yeah that worked out fine, didn't it?

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
    1. Re:What are you whining about? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      The legal team of Sony gets the order to stop this so they do their job and Sony, if you like it or not, tries to protect what they think is theirs.

      If your employer asks you to do something which is wrong, it's still your decision to go through with it. And how does a console purchased by a consumer belong to Sony? That seems completely bogus to me.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    2. Re:What are you whining about? by tqk · · Score: 1

      And please. all the whining about 'oh this is so bad!', no it isn't. It has nothing to do with you nor any other consumer who buys the product for what's it suppose to do, nor will this lawsuit affect your life in any way.

      I read of at least one research group who bought them because of the "other OS" feature. They were building a supercomputer out of commodity parts. Now, Sony's reverted that. Their purchase now is apparently worthless. They can't replace anything that burns out.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  64. The CAS is really about how stupid some people are by Otis_INF · · Score: 1

    Really... how many of those angry people in the CAS did install Yellow Dog Linux and actively used it on a regular basis? With satisfaction?

    I bet none. Due to the memory restrictions it was dog slow, also because the SPU's weren't utilized by many applications, making it a pretty slow performer. And that's what OtherOS gave you, a very restricted space in which you could install linux but it didn't gave you a great, powerful machine with Linux to use as a desktop machine.

    that's the sillyness of this. Some people cry like a little baby that their life has no meaning anymore because, oh the horror, OtherOS has been removed from the _play_station!.... A group which is really stupid among those crybabies joined forces with a group of shark lawyers to sue sony to get some money. For what? all the damage that was inflicted upon them by the removal of this marvelous option called 'OtherOS'? Gimme a break.

    If you want to run linux so badly, buy an ASRock with a BR drive, install linux and be happy. Oh, of course, everyone in that CAS was part of a supercomputer project, right? ...

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  65. Re:The CAS is really about how stupid some people by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

    Ah, but that's where you're wrong: If I buy something with some capibility - even if I never /use/ that capibility - and it gets removed, I have every right to complain.

    Using a car analogy, lets say I buy a 4wd truck that's computer controlled, Now, lets say I take it into the shop, and they apply a firmware update that disables the 4wd feature. Do I have a right to complain about it? Heck yes! Even if I /never used it/.

  66. Re:Shocking! by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 2

    You seem to think that Sony needs permission to harass people. That is hilarious, especially because at this rate they will sue for the identity of every person who has ever read an article critical of them so that they, too, may be harassed.

    Protip: if Sony sues everyone even vaguely involved with a certain act, giving them a new list of people will result in more people being sued.

  67. You funded terrorism by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Congratulations to everyone who bought a PS3. You have funded terrorism. Sony will now use this money to scare the piss out of you. Will you give them more?

    If you give Sony money, you are the enemy of gaming and freedom, and you are an enemy of mine. I only wish Slashdot permitted a longer foes list.

    It is long past the time when we can pretend that where we spend our money does not shape our environment. It's called Capitalism, people.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  68. Re:Shocking! by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Is it really about his defense? TFA says Sony needs his Paypal info the determine whether they can sue him in California, rather than in New Jersey. His alleged crime is not defending himself, it's cracking the PS3 security. As I understand it, Sony wants to prove that he did it for money and was funded by people in California, so they can sue him there, which is apparently better for Sony than suing him in New Jersey.

  69. So... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

    I donated $10 to his defense fund via Paypal.... not because I have used any of his code but because I have a PS3 FAT and I (until the stole functionality) used Linux on it right up until the moment Sony decided they didn't evil linux on any devices talking to PSN......

    As much as I like Sony's gaming system and despise the XBox franchise, if I were asked today I would tell people not to buy Sony.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  70. Can someone explain to me, how this is illegal by mcbain942 · · Score: 0

    I can hack my localhost , local software, post a video on youtube, as long as i dont reduce binary or any PoC. But today i know in the EULA it says you cant even tamper with what you paid for. sony can only learn from this experience dont go after this guy. Microsoft invited me to the campus for my input when i created a 0day. There is Pwnto0wn etc. This is all he is doing if im not incorrect. If he distributed or gave out code, then i would say hes a bad man.

    --
    I will not disclose a 0 day again I will not disclose a 0 day again I will not disclose a 0 day again I will not disc
    1. Re:Can someone explain to me, how this is illegal by tqk · · Score: 1

      If he distributed or gave out code, then i would say hes a bad man.

      What? Are? You? Talking? About? Or? Saying? Linus Torvalds and all us other programmers may need to know.

      I'm really having a hard time understanding why George is in trouble in the first place. Yeah, yeah, tort law in the US is in just as bad shape as the rest of their legal system, ...

      But it's his box! He owns it! Why's he being interfered with at all in the first place?!? This's nuts. What's "ownership" worth today?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  71. Authority's job, not plaintiff's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened here? First they hand over consoles and computers to Sony and now they hand over financial information. WHAT IS GOING ON?! This is wrong on so many levels.

    Please note that I do not talk about GeoHot, Sony or any other specific case, company or person. I talk about the matter of principle: (independent) authority is the one who should do investigations, not the plaintiff. Plaintiff can provide information from their (proven) sources. Once they get involved with defendant's property or information there is no more an independent source of information. Who is there to control that plaintiff does not change, add, withdraw or delete any relevant information?

    USA, ever heard about a nice little thing called democracy? What we see here is mega corporations ruling, not democratic ruling. NOT LIKE THIS.

  72. I hate this judge by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Judges like these think they are doing society a favor by ruling in the favor of the big company providing us with enjoyment and play fro a console that they control. He sucks because he is incapable of seeing past his last payoff. If he rules this way, the company gains too much control, and now a list of people that have chipped or modded ps3s fall into the hands of sony who will no doubt use it to cancel any ongoing subscriptions they might have and force them to get new accounts.

    Further more, if this is the case, what is to stop any car dealer from saying no on is allowed to fix these cars except us, they r belong to us, so no you have to come to the dealership to get your oil changed else we can sue you. I can't see the point of getting access to his paypal account to see WHO sent him money unless they tend to pursue those people too.....indirectly by cutting off their accounts.

    Great day for business, sad day for freedom.

    1. Re:I hate this judge by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      It's not that issue at all -- this is discovery for whether Sony can keep the case before the courts of N California. Sony wants to show that Hotz has a "relationship" with people in that district, which would allow them to continue their suit there, despite Hotz's already-filed objection. As you can see from the actions of this judge so far, it is definitely in Sony's best interests to have this venue.

      We haven't got anywhere near the actual case yet... this is all about location and Sony hand-picking a favourable judge.

      Hotz needs to petition the court to do discovery on Sony to prove that they did this on purpose to force him to settle... I bet he'd be able to turn up all sorts of interesting evidence.

  73. Re:Shocking! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    we now know what kind of fool you are, paypal is not a bank

    A petty cash book or credit card statement isn't a bank either, but I'm sure they'd like to see them if they had significant amounts of money going in and out.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  74. Re:Shocking! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    You're totally missing the point. The alleged story here is that Sony have been given access to someone's financial records for the purposes of discovery. The slashdot editors are trying to provoke the usual panic amongst the regular paranoiacs here, as though PayPal were someone immune to the normal laws of the land because they're on the internet.

    It's the same thing that happened on the "OMG you can libel someone on Twitter" story a couple of days ago. No shit, breaking the law via the internet doesn't mean you're not breaking the law. If the guy had stored his bank details in "the cloud" somewhere he'd be just as liable to reveal them as if he wrote them down on the back of a cornflakes box..

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  75. There's a huge difference! by pem · · Score: 1

    This is no different then the DeCSS debacle from last decade.

    Umm, no. DeCSS allowed you to decrypt DVDs.

    Jailbreaking the PS3 allows you to sign your own programs so that you can run them on your own PS3 computer.

  76. What was the use of other subpoenas? by Tasha26 · · Score: 1

    Not so long ago I read that a judge granted Sony the right to look into server logs to see who accessed GeoHot's Twitter and Youtube accounts (Gmail, Facebook?). At that point, we were told that the IP addresses were needed to help decide where the lawsuit would happen. Is the Paypal thing a way to tell us that Sony found nothing useful from the previous invasions of privacy? I was gonna buy a new laptop and a DSLR, well Sony you ain't getting my business any time soon.