This is the Sony argument again. They tried to argue that the PS3 (as in, the platform itself, not any particular PS3) was a CFAA-protected computer when prosec

This is the Sony argument again. They tried to argue that the PS3 (as in, the platform itself, not any particular PS3) was a CFAA-protected computer when prosecuting Geohot. It's an insane claim, at least to computer engineers, especially considering DMCA 1201-like anticircumvention claims were also available and far more legally targeted to the exact thing they're trying to stop. This threat is like prosecuting someone selling fake DVDs by arguing that they owned the air inside DVD cases, and that by opening the disc they had trespassed on Hollywood's air rights or something. If anyone here is an actual lawyer, is there any sort of merit to going after a hacking claim over an anticircumvention one? Remember, they aren't arguing he hacked Nintendo's 3DS, they're arguing that he hacked his own 3DS, which he somehow doesn't have access to? Is there any legal basis for a property owner not having CFAA access to their own property? Or is this just a weird throw-the-book-at-them strategy where because they can claim circumvention, they can also claim ownership over the computer that was circumvented?