GeoHotz Serves Sony

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

Because putting up data of reverse engineering has alot of legality to it. If he was charging for something then we would have a issue.. Thats why sony is not even sueing that argument as Geo is legality in the right on that side.. That are trying to dismiss his actions as against the ToU that apparently you authorize by just buying the product because the statement is int he box and if you go online on the platform is authorization.

shinrabanshou

Exemptions for research and reverse engineering exist in the DMCA, but George Hotz does not meet the requirements of these exemptions as far as I'm aware.

Yes, the DMCA goes with this as sony is trying to state they own the software of the OS. Problem is, by buying the ps3, a person is has the right to do with they please. Thats where the ToU comes in where it states by aggreeing to it, they void any measure of ownership of the software inside of the ps3 nor are you allowing ability to legally mess with the hwardware inside the machine. They both go together. The DMCA is more of a mute point in this regard and only is applied if the ToU written on the manual and what you aggree to in the software when access the PSN is met. If you fail the ToU, mess with software, you fail the DMCA. If you do not fail the ToU, do what you please and discuss said exploits then that is where the grey area exist. That is what i'm getting right now on all of this.

Ps... If you read Geohots lawyers lawsuit response to the court, they specifically discuss, Sony assertion that Geo failed the ToU, that the violation should be withount California jurisdiction (GEO is from New york), the Geo through use of a paypall account made money in the form of ads on youtube, twitter, etc, that the code was already out in the public before Geo actually posted his release of the code, etc etc..

Is that how it is?

Raymundo_Manuel

i hope he gets jail time, then sony can make a commercial where kevin butler raps about geohotz taking it in the back from big bubba in an 8 by 8 feet prison cell

Rage010101

I'm not a fan of Kevin Butler commercials but I have to admit, I love to see that :lol:

my face while watching it:

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

Yes, the DMCA goes with this as sony is trying to state they own the software of the OS. Problem is, by buying the ps3, a person is has the right to do with they please. Thats where the ToU comes in where it states by aggreeing to it, they void any measure of ownership of the software inside of the ps3 nor are you allowing ability to legally mess with the hwardware inside the machine. They both go together. The DMCA is more of a mute point in this regard and only is applied if the ToU written on the manual and what you aggree to in the software when access the PSN is met. If you fail the ToU, mess with software, you fail the DMCA. If you do not fail the ToU, do what you please and discuss said exploits then that is where the grey area exist. That is what i'm getting right now on all of this.

jedikevin2

George Hotz actions may or may not violate the DMCA, but whether or not they do, the ToU is irrelevant to that outcome.

The ToU was only relevant to the determination of personal jurisdiction, and it didn't factor into the outcome anyway.

And regardless of this current litigation, you have never owned the firmware in the PS3, nor the firmware in the 360, nor the Wii.

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

Jail time + rapping skills = next MTV star :P

Vesica_Prime

It will happen. :P

Aw crap does that mean there will be a video game too? I can see it now...

...Coming Exclusively to Xbox 360 this fall, "GeoHotz: Blood on the System." :lol:

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

Yes, the DMCA goes with this as sony is trying to state they own the software of the OS. Problem is, by buying the ps3, a person is has the right to do with they please. Thats where the ToU comes in where it states by aggreeing to it, they void any measure of ownership of the software inside of the ps3 nor are you allowing ability to legally mess with the hwardware inside the machine. They both go together. The DMCA is more of a mute point in this regard and only is applied if the ToU written on the manual and what you aggree to in the software when access the PSN is met. If you fail the ToU, mess with software, you fail the DMCA. If you do not fail the ToU, do what you please and discuss said exploits then that is where the grey area exist. That is what i'm getting right now on all of this.

shinrabanshou

George Hotz actions may or may not violate the DMCA, but whether or not they do, the ToU is irrelevant to that outcome.

The ToU was only relevant to the determination of personal jurisdiction, and it didn't factor into the outcome anyway.

And regardless of this current litigation, you have never owned the firmware in the PS3, nor the firmware in the 360, nor the Wii.

I'm just looking at the PDf lawsuit claim of sony and response from Geo lawyer pdf.. Sony specifically states he violated the Terms of Use and DMCA. The DMCA as i stated only goes as far as Sony's statement that you don't own the software inside the hardware of the ps3 when bought. They speak about both. PM me if you want the the files. Don't know what Gamespots feelings on paperwork of this type though its free to access on the web.

Whats funny, when you read through... Sony stated the group of hackers is responsible for reverse engineering but that the blame falls on Geo. The logic behind alot of the argument is a bit perplexing to say the least.

I'm just looking at the PDf lawsuit claim of sony and response from Geo lawyer pdf.. Sony specifically states he violated the Terms of Use. They then go to speak about the DMCA.

jedikevin2

The other major claim is violation of the CFAA, although with less grounds, imo. There are several other claims as well, but they are or will be peripheral to these claims.

Personal jurisdiction was granted based on effects doctrine.

And the TRO and impoundment were granted on the basis that SCEA has shown "a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for violation of the DMCA and CFAA".

Keep reading.. After the first response paperwork by Geo lawyers, Sony switches gears and comesback that he violates the ToU.

Keep reading.. After the first response paperwork by Geo lawyers, Sony switches gears and comesback that he violates the ToU.

jedikevin2

Jurisdiction was granted not because of the ToU but because of effects doctrine.

The motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the litigation in general is not about violation of the ToU and has little to do with the ToU.

The grounds for litigation are US Federal law.

What I have read:

• Sony states he violated the DMCA,
• Geo lwyers states everything in the ps3 is free game by paying for said product,
• Sony's response is that he broke the ToU,
• Geohots lawyers reply he never accepted the ToU.
• Multiple attacks between if that is Geohots accounts speculation etc from sony.
• Alot of discussion between California and new jersey
• Alot of discussion between the actual group who actually broke the ps3
• A Dismissal paperwork has been formed merely due to the pro que Sony Inc. to sony LLc, california vs new jersey locations, among other statements.

The grounds of the case how I see it is that Sony says Geo broke the DMCA by working against software that was not his. Geo lawyers are saying, he owns said software by buying the product that holds the software and can do whatever he pleases with his product. Because of this, the ToU comes out as it states in it you do not have ownership of said software. Because Geo's lawyers are saying he never accepted those terms, it will be telling to see if that will hold. It all plays a part. DMCA is the overview but as you narrow down it becomes:

Will sony be able to prove the software sold inside the ps3 is never owned by the consumer? Is the ToU in manuals or by access to the PSN the be all compliance to anyone with a ps3(AKa if you bought a ps3, you by buying it agree to those terms )? If those hold then then has Geo violated said DMCA?

No. what I jsut read,

• Sony states he violtated the DMCA,
• Geo lwyers states everything in the ps3 is free game by paying for said product,
• Sony's response is that he broke the ToU,
• Geohots lawyers reply he never accepted the ToU.
• Mutliple attacks between if that is Geohots accounts speculation etc from sony.
• Alot of discussion between california and new jersey
• Alot of discussion between the actual group who actually broke the ps3
• A Dismissal paperwork has been formed mroely due to the pro que Sony Inc. to sony LLc, california vs new jersey locations, among other statments.

The grounds of the case to how i see it is that Geo broke the DMCA by working against software that was not his. Because Geo lawyers are saying, he owns said software by buying the product he can do whatever. Because of this, the ToU comes out as it states you do not have ownership of said software. Because Geo's lawyers are saying he never accepted those terms, it will be telling to see if that will hold. It all plays a part. DMCA is the overview but as you narrow down it becomes:

Will sony be able to prove the software sold inside the ps3 is never owned by the consumer? Is the ToU in manuals or by access to the PSN the be all compliance to anyone with a ps3(AKa if you bought a ps3, you by buying it agree to those terms). If those hold then the grounds that what has happened because of this release violates the said DMCA. Thats what i'm getting so far on all of this.

jedikevin2

I don't know where exactly you're getting this interpretation of the case.

The case is about the DMCA, the CFAA and some other claims.

Nowhere is it about violation of the Terms of Service, or the Terms of Service at all, beyond argument over personal jurisdiction. Nowhere is it about breach of contract. Nowhere is it about firmware ownership.

The case is about the potential violation of US Federal law. And has always been about this potential violation. Again, specifically this US Federal law. The Terms of Use have no bearing on the merits of the case.

Again you never own the proprietary firmware on a device, you never own the proprietary software on a disc; ownership of such intellectual property is always maintained by content creator until such time as intellectual property protection on the creation in question lapses. But this case will not affect that in any way, because it's not what the case is about.

White people shouldn't rap. That was just awful.

White people shouldn't rap. That was just awful.

dc337

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

Yes, the DMCA goes with this as sony is trying to state they own the software of the OS. Problem is, by buying the ps3, a person is has the right to do with they please. Thats where the ToU comes in where it states by aggreeing to it, they void any measure of ownership of the software inside of the ps3 nor are you allowing ability to legally mess with the hwardware inside the machine. They both go together. The DMCA is more of a mute point in this regard and only is applied if the ToU written on the manual and what you aggree to in the software when access the PSN is met. If you fail the ToU, mess with software, you fail the DMCA. If you do not fail the ToU, do what you please and discuss said exploits then that is where the grey area exist. That is what i'm getting right now on all of this.

shinrabanshou

George Hotz actions may or may not violate the DMCA, but whether or not they do, the ToU is irrelevant to that outcome.

The ToU was only relevant to the determination of personal jurisdiction, and it didn't factor into the outcome anyway.

And regardless of this current litigation, you have never owned the firmware in the PS3, nor the firmware in the 360, nor the Wii.

That's what all the hackers and hack-supporters refuse to recognize. They seem to insist that because they bought the system, it is their right to do WHATEVER they want to it, even if that includes modifying the software and firmware. These are not legal, though, because SONY owns the software and firmware. The only reason you are allowed to use them is because Sony agreed to let you use them when you bought the system, but they are still Sony's property and they have the right to sue you if you tamper with them. Whenever you bring that up though, Hotz' supporters just put their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALA I JUST WANT TO USE LINUX IT'S MY RIGHT LALALA". Seriously, this bizarre technological fetish that some people have with puting Linux on devices that were not intended to run it is most perplexing, not to mention potentially destructive.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

Yes, the DMCA goes with this as sony is trying to state they own the software of the OS. Problem is, by buying the ps3, a person is has the right to do with they please. Thats where the ToU comes in where it states by aggreeing to it, they void any measure of ownership of the software inside of the ps3 nor are you allowing ability to legally mess with the hwardware inside the machine. They both go together. The DMCA is more of a mute point in this regard and only is applied if the ToU written on the manual and what you aggree to in the software when access the PSN is met. If you fail the ToU, mess with software, you fail the DMCA. If you do not fail the ToU, do what you please and discuss said exploits then that is where the grey area exist. That is what i'm getting right now on all of this.

Timstuff

George Hotz actions may or may not violate the DMCA, but whether or not they do, the ToU is irrelevant to that outcome.

The ToU was only relevant to the determination of personal jurisdiction, and it didn't factor into the outcome anyway.

And regardless of this current litigation, you have never owned the firmware in the PS3, nor the firmware in the 360, nor the Wii.

That's what all the hackers and hack-supporters refuse to recognize. They seem to insist that because they bought the system, it is their right to do WHATEVER they want to it, even if that includes modifying the software and firmware. These are not legal, though, because SONY owns the software and firmware. The only reason you are allowed to use them is because Sony agreed to let you use them when you bought the system, but they are still Sony's property and they have the right to sue you if you tamper with them. Whenever you bring that up though, Hotz' supporters just put their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALA I JUST WANT TO USE LINUX IT'S MY RIGHT LALALA". Seriously, this bizarre technological fetish that some people have with puting Linux on devices that were not intended to run it is most perplexing, not to mention potentially destructive.