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.'"
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?).
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.
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.
I will never buy anything from them again, and I will do my best to persuade others from doing so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.).
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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
Woooo! Astroturf and Godwin Too!!
Think it'll work?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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.
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!
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.
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.
Precedent can only be set by an appeals court or higher, not by the first level of courts.
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.
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.
Are they, now? You know what else is antithetical to a free market? Reality.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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...
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.
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > Â 1
 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.
 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.
 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.
Just add a note to your donation that says, "This is NOT for hacking Sony devices."
"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.
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.
Reminds me of how I always write "Hookers and Crack" in the notes section on my checks that I write.
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.
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?
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.
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.'"