7 ms·

I'm donating - what Sony is doing is illegal. I understand that his work has lead to the option of piracy, and I fully support Sony's decision to ban consoles t

I'm donating - what Sony is doing is illegal. I understand that his work has lead to the option of piracy, and I fully support Sony's decision to ban consoles that have been modified from their online network - however the legal battle against geohot and team fail overflow is wrong. Bottom line; this is a worthy fight to wager and my money will help support it.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- kindaworks 16y ago
  The system is largely based on precedent, so if there have been enough verdicts in favor of the defendants in this kind of case, it should become easier and easier for them to defend themselves. Maybe corporations will even sue less of them, knowing they're likely to lose.
  - chris11 16y ago
    Exactly. For example a judge in Texas recently ruled that plaintiffs in piracy cases should file against individuals. This means that each lawsuit will cost around $350 in filing fees. It isn't financially attractive to spend six figures to file lawsuits over a few hundred people watching pirated movies. So I doubt we'll see any more of those mass bittorrent lawsuits in Texas if this precedent holds.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- barrkel 16y ago
  I guess you can fight for a change in the entire US legal system of civil disputes instead, but it probably would have less likelihood of success.
rorrr 16y ago
As much as I support geohot and dislike DMCA, I'm pretty sure releasing code that circumvents security (and especially the one that causes financial loss) is still illegal. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a2 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a2 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#b http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#b There's one exception - circumvention is allowed only for security testing purposes, but I doubt he would be able to successfully use that clause.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- steipete 16y ago
  so how is this different to jailbreaking an iPhone?
  - eli 16y ago
    Well, first, I'm not sure it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone, but to answer your question it's different because the US Copyright office said so. There's a specific exemption to the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA for "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset." http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
    - radq 16y ago
      It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
      - 16y ago
Derbasti 16y ago
Sadly, this is America and there is nothing illegal enough to not be challengeable in court. Seriously, the simple fact that Hotz has to pay up front and Sony has more money makes it possible for Sony to sue Hotz for a hopeless cause. Other countries collect money only after the trials, which effectively allows poor people a fair representation in court if their cause is righteous. This whole issue is more a problem with the US legal system than it is with Sony. Sad.
kls 16y ago
I donated because I absolutely despise Sony. After their root kits on their CD's, every Sony exec should have been brought up on criminal charges. Rooting that many machines is a crime that any one of us would be doing a long stint in prison for. The fact that they got slapped on the wrist made Sony my mortal enemy. I don't buy Sony, I try to not buy technology in which Sony gets a royalty and I always take the opportunity to donate to anything that is anti-Sony. Needless to say geohot should be happy with his donations today.
eli 16y ago
I'm curious: have you read the DMCA? Why do you think it doesn't apply to geohot? Just because you don't like what Sony is doing doesn't make it illegal, and just because you support geohot doesn't mean the law is on his side. IANAL, but I don't see how he can win.
- Retric 16y ago
  Cases like this don't come down to a simple interpretation of an existing law, often focusing more on the intent than the wording. Sony actually defended a similar case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer.... Edit: HN sees to dislike periods at the end of URL's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc%2E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer...
  - eli 16y ago
    Uh, well there's a pretty huge difference between copyright cases in 1984 and copyright cases today: the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and (with few exceptions) it makes it criminal to circumvent DRM. Intent doesn't matter and whether or not you actually infringe copyright doesn't matter. I think it's a bad law, but it is a law and geohot broke it. IANAL, but I would imagine the only defense would be to try to get the law itself overturned. I don't see how else he can get out from under it. If you want to cite cases, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks,_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_Control_Association,_Inc.#x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks,_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_...
    - Retric 16y ago
      Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And the important bits: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that — (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content there seems to be little for Sony to base their case on.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

kindaworks 16y ago
The system is largely based on precedent, so if there have been enough verdicts in favor of the defendants in this kind of case, it should become easier and easier for them to defend themselves. Maybe corporations will even sue less of them, knowing they're likely to lose.
- chris11 16y ago
  Exactly. For example a judge in Texas recently ruled that plaintiffs in piracy cases should file against individuals. This means that each lawsuit will cost around $350 in filing fees. It isn't financially attractive to spend six figures to file lawsuits over a few hundred people watching pirated movies. So I doubt we'll see any more of those mass bittorrent lawsuits in Texas if this precedent holds.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
barrkel 16y ago
I guess you can fight for a change in the entire US legal system of civil disputes instead, but it probably would have less likelihood of success.

rorrr 16y ago

As much as I support geohot and dislike DMCA, I'm pretty sure releasing code that circumvents security (and especially the one that causes financial loss) is still illegal. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a2 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a2 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#b http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#b There's one exception - circumvention is allowed only for security testing purposes, but I doubt he would be able to successfully use that clause.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
steipete 16y ago
so how is this different to jailbreaking an iPhone?
- eli 16y ago
  Well, first, I'm not sure it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone, but to answer your question it's different because the US Copyright office said so. There's a specific exemption to the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA for "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset." http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
  - radq 16y ago
    It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
    - 16y ago

Derbasti 16y ago

Sadly, this is America and there is nothing illegal enough to not be challengeable in court. Seriously, the simple fact that Hotz has to pay up front and Sony has more money makes it possible for Sony to sue Hotz for a hopeless cause. Other countries collect money only after the trials, which effectively allows poor people a fair representation in court if their cause is righteous. This whole issue is more a problem with the US legal system than it is with Sony. Sad.

kls 16y ago

I donated because I absolutely despise Sony. After their root kits on their CD's, every Sony exec should have been brought up on criminal charges. Rooting that many machines is a crime that any one of us would be doing a long stint in prison for. The fact that they got slapped on the wrist made Sony my mortal enemy. I don't buy Sony, I try to not buy technology in which Sony gets a royalty and I always take the opportunity to donate to anything that is anti-Sony. Needless to say geohot should be happy with his donations today.

eli 16y ago

I'm curious: have you read the DMCA? Why do you think it doesn't apply to geohot? Just because you don't like what Sony is doing doesn't make it illegal, and just because you support geohot doesn't mean the law is on his side. IANAL, but I don't see how he can win.

Retric 16y ago
Cases like this don't come down to a simple interpretation of an existing law, often focusing more on the intent than the wording. Sony actually defended a similar case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer.... Edit: HN sees to dislike periods at the end of URL's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc%2E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer...
- eli 16y ago
  Uh, well there's a pretty huge difference between copyright cases in 1984 and copyright cases today: the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and (with few exceptions) it makes it criminal to circumvent DRM. Intent doesn't matter and whether or not you actually infringe copyright doesn't matter. I think it's a bad law, but it is a law and geohot broke it. IANAL, but I would imagine the only defense would be to try to get the law itself overturned. I don't see how else he can get out from under it. If you want to cite cases, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks,_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_Control_Association,_Inc.#x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks,_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_...
  - Retric 16y ago
    Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And the important bits: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that — (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content there seems to be little for Sony to base their case on.