[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]So thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who simply went to certain websites are all 'hackers'? That makes absolutely no sense. JynxzorThese IP's were only used to try and get juristiction...but everyone needs to panic and bar the doors because the Sony police are gonna find you for watching a youtube video... I'm pretty sure you would get laughed out of court if you tried to use nothing but a IP saying you watched a Youtube video, to try you for any sort of action. But again everyone is freaking out like Sony logged all the IP's for future deathsquad use, when infact the data was only for that one fact and will probably be destroyed afterwards, or is probably even being handled by a nuetral third party.Sony went way too far collecting IPs of people who went to certain websites. They did it for pure intimidation purposes as it serves no practical purpose.
Hacking - The Legal Grounds.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Sony went way too far collecting IPs of people who went to certain websites. They did it for pure intimidation purposes as it serves no practical purpose.KC_HokieAside from the perfectly reasonable explination I gave you above...Please explain to me how collecting IP adresses to try and garner juristiction in California is "intimidating people" If Sony wanted to scare people I'm sure they would have said "Hey we got your IP's....and after we are done with Hotz....YOUR NEXT!" That or the court you know just decided to give them the access to this information for totally your above reasons.
And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.Hotz won last time in a nearly identical case.Jynxzor
Hotz won last time in a nearly identical case. ^This. The principles that allowed him to win the iPhone exemption are the same here. It doesn't help that Sony said the PS3 was a computer to save money at one point.[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sony went way too far collecting IPs of people who went to certain websites. They did it for pure intimidation purposes as it serves no practical purpose.JynxzorAside from the perfectly reasonable explination I gave you above...Please explain to me how collecting IP adresses to try and garner juristiction in California is "intimidating people" If Sony wanted to scare people I'm sure they would have said "Hey we got your IP's....and after we are done with Hotz....YOUR NEXT!" That or the court you know just decided to give them the access to this information for totally your above reasons.What does collecting IPs of people who went to YouTube have to do with 'jurisdiction'. I've read over several pieces of legal documents from this case and the IPs were never used for legal purposes. Sony used them solely for intimidation.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Timstuff"] Unfortunately, some people have it in their heads that just because Hotz is not being hit with any criminal charges means that he did not break the law. You cannot sue someone if they did not break any law. Sony has stated in their LAWsuit that Hotz has broken multiple copyright LAWS as well as the LAW that we call the DMCA. He illegally distributed hacks and made the instructions for hacking the PS3 widely available to the entire internet. Just because you WANT what Hotz did to be legal does not make it so, but unfortunately that is the prevailing attitude of most hackers, cheaters and pirates since they seem to have no respect for intellectual property laws whatsoever, and thus have fooled themselves into thinking that they don't mean anything.Of course you can sue someone who didn't break the law. You can sue people over coffee being too hot (hurr durr, I expected cold coffee) because you spilled it on yourself, and become a millionaire off of it. Exactly. You can sue over just about anything. Doesn't mean you'll win but you can do it. It also doesn't make it illegal. Sue some company because the ocffee is too hot, does not mean hot coffee is illegal, and thus suing Hotz for jabilreaking the PS3 does not make it illegal either, otherwise criminal charges WOULD be applied. Being charged criminally is not the same as a civil lawsuit and thus doesn't assume the deeds were illegal.AncientDozer
Hotz won last time in a nearly identical case. and I found $20.00 on the ground today, doesn't mean that next time I walk down that road I'm going to find another $20.00. Lesson is that the court may not rule the exact same way due to the nature of the PS3. You don't know what they will do, I don't know what they will do. So we need to stop ASSUMING what will happen and look at the facts. OJ got off the hook, should we then assume all suspected murderers will possibly go free? No Geohot one a DMCA case once, should we then assume he will win all future cases? No[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Hotz won last time in a nearly identical case. ^This. The principles that allowed him to win the iPhone exemption are the same here. It doesn't help that Sony said the PS3 was a computer to save money at one point.Exactly. The PS3 was marketed in parts of Europe as a PC. Hell, the CEO at the time marketed the PS3 as a PC.[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.
DarkLink77
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Hotz won last time in a nearly identical case. and I found $20.00 on the ground today, doesn't mean that next time I walk down that road I'm going to find another $20.00. Lesson is that the court may not rule the exact same way due to the nature of the PS3. You don't know what they will do, I don't know what they will do. So we need to stop ASSUMING what will happen and look at the facts. OJ got off the hook, should we then assume all suspected murderers will possibly go free? No Geohot one a DMCA case once, should we then assume he will win all future cases? NoI am looking at facts. Based on precedence Sony has a lot of work to do. Remember in American courts you have to prove liability.[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]And nobody said it wasn't, but until we see that addition in the next 12 months it's still covered. Instead of fighting this DMCA ruling Hotz just decided to scoff in the face of the law "twice now" it's not really the procedure people want to follow in a democratic society. So yeah, still legal ground.
Jynxzor
Exactly. You can sue over just about anything. Doesn't mean you'll win but you can do it. It also doesn't make it illegal. Sue some company because the ocffee is too hot, does not mean hot coffee is illegal, and thus suing Hotz for jabilreaking the PS3 does not make it illegal either, otherwise criminal charges WOULD be applied. Being charged criminally is not the same as a civil lawsuit and thus doesn't assume the deeds were illegal. You're confusing the term illegal with criminal. These are NOT interchangeable. Criminal law is one section of the law, and there are lots of illegal things that are not covered under criminal law (hence why the civil law system exists). You actually do need legal basis to bring a civil suite to court. Said legal basis can be flimsy, but you still need it. In fact that very thing is what best protects Geo, because if he didn't have the potential for the law being okay with what he did, he could be found at fault, regardless of the law.[QUOTE="AncientDozer"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Of course you can sue someone who didn't break the law. You can sue people over coffee being too hot (hurr durr, I expected cold coffee) because you spilled it on yourself, and become a millionaire off of it.Phazevariance
I've read over several pieces of legal documents from this case and the IPs were never used for legal purposes. Sony used them solely for intimidation.KC_HokieYour obviously not reading very hard. But then again Sony is trying to scare me! Hell I watched the video....Do I care that Sony may have my IP? Nope, because nothing illegal happened in the process of me watching a video, nor do they even want to persue me over it. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201110/6908/Sony-to-target-comment-posts-and-website-views-in-jailbreak-case "Again, they are looking to use the information to prove the trafficking part of the DMCA and to prove jurisdiction in California. In addition, Sony is looking to see if the video violates a previous restraining order against Hotz against discussing his jailbreak on the PS3."
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] I've read over several pieces of legal documents from this case and the IPs were never used for legal purposes. Sony used them solely for intimidation.JynxzorYour obviously not reading very hard. But then again Sony is trying to scare me! Hell I watched the video....Do I care that Sony may have my IP? Nope, because nothing illegal happened in the process of me watching a video, nor do they even want to persue me over it. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201110/6908/Sony-to-target-comment-posts-and-website-views-in-jailbreak-case "Again, they are looking to use the information to prove the trafficking part of the DMCA and to prove jurisdiction in California. In addition, Sony is looking to see if the video violates a previous restraining order against Hotz against discussing his jailbreak on the PS3."I don't like the idea of corporations subpoenaing lists of thousands if not tens of thousands of IPs. And I read the legal document these IPs were never actually used for legal purposes. They were used solely for intimidation purposes. Sony was trying to scare anyone from visiting certain YouTube sites and Geohotz' site.
You have 0 ground to base those facts upon, where as Sony stated the reason they wanted them to the courts, and got legal access to them. You can cry about it all you want but it doesn't change the fact I can't even see anyone being intimidated by it in the first place. Please link me to the document and area where it tells you "Sony never used the IP's to scare people!" They obviously didn't use them because it didn't help them with juristiction issues. Your jumping allover Sony for doing everything in due dillegence it can to strenghten it's case, while proping Geohot up to be some kind of hero. Both Sony and Geohot can go suck a knob for what they are doing right now if you ask me, neither of them are going to get good results for us consumers. Geohot wins and were open to hackers more than we ever were before. Sony wins and chances are we are going to be held in a chokechain with what we can do with future products of all kinds. I still pray they settle this outside of court and nothing changes, we are perfectly fine as is. If you start begging for too much freedom don't be suprised when someone uses there freedoms to impose upon yours.Jynxzor
This is all jurisdiction crap.
The hardware and firmware are under control of SCEI. SCEA isnt even a subsidiary of SCEI... they have little to nothing to tie them to the case except maybe the existence of a PSN account.
If you are suing under the DMCA for bypassing security measures of the hardware/firmware.... shouldnt the party that owns the rights for the hardware/firmware be responsible for bringing the suit? doesnt that make the most sense.Rather than the company responsible for PSN? He didnt hack PSN.
SCEA shouldnt even be involved in this lawsuit, and are subpeonaing all this info they have no reason to have... dragging innocent people's personal info through the mud in the process.
If SCEI brought the suit, there would be no question of jurisdiction and the damn trial could have been started ages ago.
dragging innocent people's personal info through the mud in the process.markinthedarkI still don't get this line of thought, it's not like they put the IP's on pikes and left them out to display...More of your personal info is out there than you want to know, Sony knowing that you watched a particular video or went to a particular web-page is nothing compared to the stats Google builds on you.
[QUOTE="markinthedark"]dragging innocent people's personal info through the mud in the process.JynxzorI still don't get this line of thought, it's not like they put the IP's on pikes and left them out to display...More of your personal info is out there than you want to know, Sony knowing that you watched a particular video or went to a particular web-page is nothing compared to the stats Google builds on you.
Its not just the IP, they subpoena'd user information as well. The EFF even tried to appeal to the courts and say "sony doesnt need all this info to establish the location of the users"
but the judge was just like "meh, let sony have all the info they want"
a particularly litigious company like sony having access to my user info and IP, isnt a comforting concept. (well i never downloaded the video, so they dont have my info.. but if i place myself in the shoes of someone that did, thats how i would feel.)
These IP's were only used to try and get juristiction...but everyone needs to panic and bar the doors because the Sony police are gonna find you for watching a youtube video... I'm pretty sure you would get laughed out of court if you tried to use nothing but a IP saying you watched a Youtube video, to try you for any sort of action. But again everyone is freaking out like Sony logged all the IP's for future deathsquad use, when infact the data was only for that one fact and will probably be destroyed afterwards, or is probably even being handled by a nuetral third party.Sony went way too far collecting IPs of people who went to certain websites. They did it for pure intimidation purposes as it serves no practical purpose.And you're saying George Hotz didn't go too far in putting Sony's security keys online for the whole world to exploit? Who gave Hotz the right to do that? At least Sony got permission from the court. Sony asked the court if they could get those IP adresses, and the court said yes, so that means that by the law they did not go to far. Who is in charge making sure that George Hotz uses his hacking knowledge responsibly? If folks like you and anonymous had their way, no-one would hold him responsible. You act as if Sony broke the rules by working within the legal system, and then the hackers are all innocent even though they are ignoring copyright laws left and right. What a backwards world you must live in.[QUOTE="Jynxzor"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]So thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who simply went to certain websites are all 'hackers'? That makes absolutely no sense. KC_Hokie
While i may agree it's a bit of an extra step they never needed to take, if this information was ever used outside of this court case it would become null and void evidence anyways. I seriously don't think people need to get worked up over it, or worried at all. People are far to quick to jump the gun on what the information was for, who actually got the information I have not seen any evidence of Sony gathering anything outside of IP's as thats all that is needed to say "Callifornia" Feel free to link me to it as I like to read up on this case. As much as I'm not on a single side I like to stay informed. For the record, Sony must have my IP and whatever...but I don't really care. I'm sure anyone who wanted it could get it fairly easily as well it's not like our IP's are massive secrets when we are wandering the web it gets logged everytime we touch a web-page.Jynxzor
Your IP isnt a big deal, but what its linked to is what matters. If you sony has your ip because you watched a cute puppy video, probably dont care much. But if they have it linked to you watching "backdoor sluts 9", you might be a little less comfortable with them having your IP on file for viewing that video.
Here is a video aboutthe issue
[QUOTE="Jynxzor"]While i may agree it's a bit of an extra step they never needed to take, if this information was ever used outside of this court case it would become null and void evidence anyways. I seriously don't think people need to get worked up over it, or worried at all. People are far to quick to jump the gun on what the information was for, who actually got the information I have not seen any evidence of Sony gathering anything outside of IP's as thats all that is needed to say "Callifornia" Feel free to link me to it as I like to read up on this case. As much as I'm not on a single side I like to stay informed. For the record, Sony must have my IP and whatever...but I don't really care. I'm sure anyone who wanted it could get it fairly easily as well it's not like our IP's are massive secrets when we are wandering the web it gets logged everytime we touch a web-page.markinthedark
Your IP isnt a big deal, but what its linked to is what matters. If you sony has your ip because you watched a cute puppy video, probably dont care much. But if they have it linked to you watching "backdoor sluts 9", you might be a little less comfortable with them having your IP on file for viewing that video.
Here is a video aboutthe issue
Not really, because whatever web-page I got the "other" video from is probably busy distributing my IP allover the place anyways. Sony can't do anything with the information aside use it for juristiction cause.You can't do a class action lawsuit against a bunch of IP adresses anyway. Viacom tried to do that against a bunch of IP adresses that they'd collected that they believed had downloaded their movies, shows, and music, and the court threw it out. The IP adresses in this case will be enough to prove to the court that the case should be in California, which is what Sony wanted, not for future lawsuits against every single individual who saw Hotz' video. If it makes the hackers pee themselves a little when they hear Sony's name though I'm OK with that too, because they need to be taken down a notch. They think they're invincible, and Sony is proving them wrong.
The ironic part is that the George Hotz Defence Force is defending him putting his hacks online as being "freedom of information," and yet when the court allows all of their IP adresses to be shared with Sony, suddenly freedom of information is a very selective concept! Sony is not allowed to have trade secrets, but hackers, cheaters and pirates must have their anonymity protected, or else it's just not fair!
You can't do a class action lawsuit against a bunch of IP adresses anyway. Viacom tried to do that against a bunch of IP adresses that they'd collected that they believed had downloaded their movies, shows, and music, and the court threw it out. The IP adresses in this case will be enough to prove to the court that the case should be in California, which is what Sony wanted, not for future lawsuits against every single individual who saw Hotz' video. If it makes the hackers pee themselves a little when they hear Sony's name though I'm OK with that too, because they need to be taken down a notch. They think they're invincible, and Sony is proving them wrong.
The ironic part is that the George Hotz Defence Force is defending him putting his hacks online as being "freedom of information," and yet when the court allows all of their IP adresses to be shared with Sony, suddenly freedom of information is a very selective concept! Sony is not allowed to have trade secrets, but hackers, cheaters and pirates must have their anonymity protected, or else it's just not fair!
Timstuff
personal information usually has a separate distinction... and separate privacy laws.
Not all of the people who watched those videos were hackers, cheaters, or pirates. And yes, you should have complete control over hardware you purchase. It's not the same thing.You can't do a class action lawsuit against a bunch of IP adresses anyway. Viacom tried to do that against a bunch of IP adresses that they'd collected that they believed had downloaded their movies, shows, and music, and the court threw it out. The IP adresses in this case will be enough to prove to the court that the case should be in California, which is what Sony wanted, not for future lawsuits against every single individual who saw Hotz' video. If it makes the hackers pee themselves a little when they hear Sony's name though I'm OK with that too, because they need to be taken down a notch. They think they're invincible, and Sony is proving them wrong.
The ironic part is that the George Hotz Defence Force is defending him putting his hacks online as being "freedom of information," and yet when the court allows all of their IP adresses to be shared with Sony, suddenly freedom of information is a very selective concept! Sony is not allowed to have trade secrets, but hackers, cheaters and pirates must have their anonymity protected, or else it's just not fair!
Timstuff
[QUOTE="Timstuff"]Not all of the people who watched those videos were hackers, cheaters, or pirates. And yes, you should have complete control over hardware you purchase. It's not the same thing.Sony is not even using the IP addresses for anything other than this specific court case, so it's a moot point. Aslo, you can do whatever you want with the hardware you own, but you cannot modify and re-distrubute software without obtaining the publisher's permission, and unfortunately for GeoHotz that's exactly what he did. Whether you like to admit it or not, the distribution of custom firmware does not fall on the grounds of "I own this so I can do whatever I want with it." Just because I own a copy of Windows does not mean I'm allowed to make and distribute a crack for it on the internet.You can't do a class action lawsuit against a bunch of IP adresses anyway. Viacom tried to do that against a bunch of IP adresses that they'd collected that they believed had downloaded their movies, shows, and music, and the court threw it out. The IP adresses in this case will be enough to prove to the court that the case should be in California, which is what Sony wanted, not for future lawsuits against every single individual who saw Hotz' video. If it makes the hackers pee themselves a little when they hear Sony's name though I'm OK with that too, because they need to be taken down a notch. They think they're invincible, and Sony is proving them wrong.
The ironic part is that the George Hotz Defence Force is defending him putting his hacks online as being "freedom of information," and yet when the court allows all of their IP adresses to be shared with Sony, suddenly freedom of information is a very selective concept! Sony is not allowed to have trade secrets, but hackers, cheaters and pirates must have their anonymity protected, or else it's just not fair!
DarkLink77
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment