PS3 Hacker Raised All the Legal Funds Needed to Beat Sony in a Weekend

They wouldn't dare. They were going to try it this generation but backed down due to consumer backlash (that and the fact that they faced suits under First Sale Doctrine).HuusAsking

Autodesk won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, publishers would simply point to that legal precedent.

I hope he wins the court battle.

[QUOTE="LP4EVA2005"]

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]Don't know how to feel about this. It is his property so I believe he should have the right to do what he wants with it. But putting the root key online is another thing. Hack your console, but keep it to yourself.AGMing

Exactly, thats what makes him an ass and why i hate him. dont know why so many ppl stick up for this guy :roll:

How old are you to have such a narrow view on the topic. Really kids mommy and daddy should have tought you the value of money. Sony is at fault here for removing the other os feature from all ps3's. Now the slim ps3's never had the feature but the fat ps3's did. Sony sold the fat ps3's as more than gaming machines at a high price. The other os feature was a key selling point. It actually worked pretty good and turned my ps3 into a cheap htpc.

Then sony updated the firmware to disable the other os if you went on psn. No problem for me I gamed offline and used the othe OS. Then new games starting with Red Dead starting needing the new firmware just to be able to play the games. This was a big problem for me cause now I could not get on psn or play the new games if i wanted to use the other OS feature. I wrote and called sony to protest this. Sony basically said the TOS allows them to update the firmware how they see fit. Basically giving me the finger after i spent 700 bucks on my unit.

So after being told to f-off and having no options, the system was hacked to put back the features that sony removed. I dont support pirates or scum that cheat online in games. I do however want to use the other OS and play new games that I paid for like I used to period. This is why I support Geohot because sony refused to address the issue.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

The problem is, as with all the people that hate this dude, you are making giant leaps in causation. How far back do we trace trangressions? how many steps are you willing to take?

And yes the system software is copyrighted intellectual property.... but just as you have to right to modify any program you own on your PC, you have the right to modify any program you own on your PS3... or at least, thats how it should be.

shinrabanshou

The specific tools he released are usable for piracy. I am not referring to the keys alone. I am tracing backwards a single step to George Hotz contributing to piracy.

You do not own the intellectual property of any software. You do not have free reign to modify and distribute others' intellectual property. Fair use may apply, but only if certain requirements are met.

see you went and put "and distribute" in there. Which ups the stakes. Its obviously illegal to distribute copyrighted code without the permission of the owner. But my understanding is geohot never distributed copyrighted code, he only distributed the tools and knowledge to modify your firmware.

and its not one step, because geohot didnt distribute any pirated games... someone else has to crack the game... upload it on to the internet along with instructions on how to run it on the jailbreak... and then the end user needs to download a copy and run it on their system. If i simply jailbreak my PS3, i dont all of a sudden have an unlimited number of pirated games to play.... there are several more steps involved to get those pirated games on my system.

When you have people donating for the "Break My PS3" crap, anything is possible.

see you went and put "and distribute" in there. Which ups the stakes. Its obviously illegal to distribute copyrighted code without the permission of the owner. But my understanding is geohot never distributed copyrighted code, he only distributed the tools and knowledge to modify your firmware.

and its not one step, because geohot didnt distribute any pirated games... someone else has to crack the game... upload it on to the internet along with instructions on how to run it on the jailbreak... and then the end user needs to download a copy and run it on their system. If i simply jailbreak my PS3, i dont all of a sudden have an unlimited number of pirated games to play.... there are several more steps involved to get those pirated games on my system.

markinthedark

I'm not referring to pirated games. I'm referring to tools that enable piracy - that is what Title 17 Chapter 12 deals with.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

see you went and put "and distribute" in there. Which ups the stakes. Its obviously illegal to distribute copyrighted code without the permission of the owner. But my understanding is geohot never distributed copyrighted code, he only distributed the tools and knowledge to modify your firmware.

and its not one step, because geohot didnt distribute any pirated games... someone else has to crack the game... upload it on to the internet along with instructions on how to run it on the jailbreak... and then the end user needs to download a copy and run it on their system. If i simply jailbreak my PS3, i dont all of a sudden have an unlimited number of pirated games to play.... there are several more steps involved to get those pirated games on my system.

shinrabanshou

I'm not referring to pirated games. I'm referring to tools that enable piracy - that is what Title 17 Chapter 12 deals with.

If he distributed modified firmware itself it could be a problem... but checking the sony website for their free public firmware download, i dont actually see any stipulation regarding modifications or redistribution (maybe im missing it?)... which would make distributing a modified version perfectly legal. Geohot may not be a lawyer, but i imagine hes intelligent enough to not blatantly violate copyright law.

and im not the best at reading straight up legalize speak... but i imagine the tools would need to directly enable piracy, rather than indirectly. Otherwise the internet is a tool that enables piracy and would be illegal.

If he distributed modified firmware itself it could be a problem... but checking the sony website for their free public firmware download, i dont actually see any stipulation regarding modifications or redistribution (maybe im missing it?)... which would make distributing a modified version perfectly legal.

and im not the best at reading straight up legalize speak... but i imagine the tools would need to directly enable piracy, rather than indirectly. Otherwise the internet is a tool that enables piracy and would be illegal.

markinthedark

The System Software as copyrighted, implicitly grants exclusive rights to reproduce, produce derivative works, sell, lease, rent or otherwise distribute to the copyright holder.

But the System Software license contains this passage anyway:

"You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws. Except as expressly granted in this Agreement, SCE and its licensors reserve all rights, interests and remedies."

Fair use may apply, but that would be at the discretion of a judge, with consideration to the four factors I listed earlier.

It is largely irrelevant though as SCEA is not taking legal action specifically for copyright infringement of the System Software anyway.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

If he distributed modified firmware itself it could be a problem... but checking the sony website for their free public firmware download, i dont actually see any stipulation regarding modifications or redistribution (maybe im missing it?)... which would make distributing a modified version perfectly legal.

and im not the best at reading straight up legalize speak... but i imagine the tools would need to directly enable piracy, rather than indirectly. Otherwise the internet is a tool that enables piracy and would be illegal.

shinrabanshou

The System Software as copyrighted, implicitly grants exclusive rights to reproduce, produce derivative works, sell, lease, rent or otherwise distribute to the copyright holder.

But the System Software license contains this passage anyway:

"You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws. Except as expressly granted in this Agreement, SCE and its licensors reserve all rights, interests and remedies."

Fair use may apply, but that would be at the discretion of a judge, with consideration to the four factors I listed earlier.

It is largely irrelevant though as SCEA is not taking legal action specifically for copyright infringement of the System Software anyway.

The problem with saying that the jailbreak directly enables piracy, is that the same would hold true for windows. As windows allows people to run unsigned code on their pc.... which isnt horribly different than what the jailbreak does.

And you are correct about the restrictions on the firmware. I initially only read the part about "The system software and system software updates installed on your system are subject to a limited license from Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Visithttp://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eulafor details." Which made me think the firmware download was exempt until it was actually installed on the system. When you click through to the actual EULA it specifies differently... but the wording of that could be argued in court that it is reasonable to believe since it only specified software installed to your system, that software not installed on your system (such as the download file itself) would be exempt.

Although it does seem dumb geohot didnt just write a program that modifies the pup and have users download the firmware themselves.... probably laziness.

But if they arent trying to get him for copyright infringement, i think sony is SOL. Seems like copyright infringement would be their best bet.

EDIT: oh and actually geohot's jailbreak didnt give enough system access to pirate games... that came later. People were originally mad at geohot thinking he intentionally blocked piracy on his jailbreak. When in actuality he just hadnt cracked the system protections that allowed pirating... and warned people not to try to pirate with his jailbreak because they would brick their console. So with Geohot's version of jailbreak, you cant pirate games on your ps3.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

If he distributed modified firmware itself it could be a problem... but checking the sony website for their free public firmware download, i dont actually see any stipulation regarding modifications or redistribution (maybe im missing it?)... which would make distributing a modified version perfectly legal.

and im not the best at reading straight up legalize speak... but i imagine the tools would need to directly enable piracy, rather than indirectly. Otherwise the internet is a tool that enables piracy and would be illegal.

markinthedark

The System Software as copyrighted, implicitly grants exclusive rights to reproduce, produce derivative works, sell, lease, rent or otherwise distribute to the copyright holder.

But the System Software license contains this passage anyway:

"You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws. Except as expressly granted in this Agreement, SCE and its licensors reserve all rights, interests and remedies."

Fair use may apply, but that would be at the discretion of a judge, with consideration to the four factors I listed earlier.

It is largely irrelevant though as SCEA is not taking legal action specifically for copyright infringement of the System Software anyway.

The problem with saying that the jailbreak directly enables piracy, is that the same would hold true for windows. As windows allows people to run unsigned code on their pc.... which isnt horribly different than what the jailbreak does.

And you are correct about the restrictions on the firmware. I initially only read the part about "The system software and system software updates installed on your system are subject to a limited license from Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Visithttp://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eulafor details." Which made me think the firmware download was exempt until it was actually installed on the system. When you click through to the actual EULA it specifies differently... but the wording of that could be argued in court that it is reasonable to believe since it only specified software installed to your system, that software not installed on your system (such as the download file itself) would be exempt.

Although it does seem dumb geohot didnt just write a program that modifies the pup and have users download the firmware themselves.... probably laziness.

But if they arent trying to get him for copyright infringement, i think sony is SOL. Seems like copyright infringement would be their best bet.

EDIT: oh and actually geohot's jailbreak didnt give enough system access to pirate games... that came later. People were originally mad at geohot thinking he intentionally blocked piracy on his jailbreak. When in actuality he just hadnt cracked the system protections that allowed pirating... and warned people not to try to pirate with his jailbreak because they would brick their console. So with Geohot's version of jailbreak, you cant pirate games on your ps3.

The problem with saying that the jailbreak directly enables piracy, is that the same would hold true for windows. As windows allows people to run unsigned code on their pc.... which isnt horribly different than what the jailbreak does.

But if they arent trying to get him for copyright infringement, i think sony is SOL. Seems like copyright infringement would be their best bet.

EDIT: oh and actually geohot's jailbreak didnt give enough system access to pirate games... that came later. People were originally mad at geohot thinking he intentionally blocked piracy on his jailbreak. When in actuality he just hadnt cracked the system protections that allowed pirating... and warned people not to try to pirate with his jailbreak because they would brick their console. So with Geohot's version of jailbreak, you cant pirate games on your ps3.

markinthedark

NB I'm aware that piracy was not necessarily his intent, but I'm also aware that he isn't against piracy per se morally, only pragmatically.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

The problem with saying that the jailbreak directly enables piracy, is that the same would hold true for windows. As windows allows people to run unsigned code on their pc.... which isnt horribly different than what the jailbreak does.

But if they arent trying to get him for copyright infringement, i think sony is SOL. Seems like copyright infringement would be their best bet.

EDIT: oh and actually geohot's jailbreak didnt give enough system access to pirate games... that came later. People were originally mad at geohot thinking he intentionally blocked piracy on his jailbreak. When in actuality he just hadnt cracked the system protections that allowed pirating... and warned people not to try to pirate with his jailbreak because they would brick their console. So with Geohot's version of jailbreak, you cant pirate games on your ps3.

shinrabanshou

NB I'm aware that piracy was not necessarily his intent, but I'm also aware that he isn't against piracy per se morally, only pragmatically.

Even though it's irrelevant to whether or not the court rules against him, his actions make me highly doubtful that he is actually against pirating video games. He is probably the type of person who thinks that corporations already have too much money, and that piracy is "the little man's" best tool for retribution. He has shown that he has utter contempt for Sony on the sole basis that they are a big corporation and that they do not want him undermining the security of one of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even like video games, or at least doesn't like video games that people charge money for.

exactly. fair use because he wanted otherOS is not going to be accepted, since he could have not distributed the keys but rather sign an otherOS package himself and then releasing it along with his FW. He was totally aware of the negative aspects and did it because it would bring him fame.

When you have people donating for the "Break My PS3" crap, anything is possible.

Mr_BillGates

I hope Geohotz burns.KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="Mr_BillGates"]

When you have people donating for the "Break My PS3" crap, anything is possible.

Robbazking

I hope Geohotz burns.KHAndAnime

Well, some people have this belief that a closed system should stay closed which is why they chose to buy a closed system for.

So they believe that people circumventing the closedness of the system while compromising it, specially for online stuff, should get (since users of the hacks themselves won't really ever be guilty in a trial) punished for all the exponential damage they have done to the platform.

In other words, i see geohot (or egohot as I like to call him) as someone who basicly broke the very premise i bought the ps3 for. A closed-while open though otherOS system that kept everyone with legit purchases with a free online service.

He helped to cut the feature of otherOS for us, FAT users.

He circumvented something unpatchable at that point that allows people to play games they don't own

And the worst part of the previous point is: online, for free.

PSN and the online games it has get funds from the sale of the game. People going in without a legit copy are damaging the online service (not only you dont pay the game, you also use their network to play it, clogging it up), and giving sony the perfect excuse to make it a pay2use service ala xbox live gold.

There are my reasons.

Shinrabanshou won this thread like 18 pages ago, but some people are too boneheaded to see that and so they keep dragging this thread out and forcing hime to make more sense.

[QUOTE="tommyas"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Activision is destroying the industry more. And so is every other publisher with their yearly releases, dumbing down games, making them shorter, day one DLC, price raises.

Microsoft is charging for online, and only making kinect games.

What's wrong with wanting to use all the features on the PS3?

USS_Data

No, only uneducated people on the matter on CFW and Sony's toons think that that is the main function of CFW.

There's a good reason. The PS3 is not a wireless telephone handset. There is no exemption for the PS3. And the Library of Congress will not revisit the DMCA until 2012. The Library of Congress sets no legal precedent.

shinrabanshou

And don't forget that Sony isn't just subject to American law. There are cases in Europe also, and European law is much more favorable to the consumer. Europe, for example, has explicit laws about products "working as advertised".

[QUOTE="USS_Data"]

[QUOTE="tommyas"] CFW is mostly ment for piracy. We all know that.hiryu3

No, only uneducated people on the matter on CFW and Sony's toons think that that is the main function of CFW.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]They wouldn't dare. They were going to try it this generation but backed down due to consumer backlash (that and the fact that they faced suits under First Sale Doctrine).shinrabanshou

Autodesk won in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, publishers would simply point to that legal precedent.

But the courts can, will, and have set legal prececents. Indeed, they're the foremost authority on interpreting the law (which is in fact their primary charge according to Article III of the Constitution). If the DMCA is found to be too much in breach of consumer rights, then it can be struck down. This is a case of property rights vs. copyrights. Rights vs. Rights: the most heated type of court case you can have. That's why the case is getting so much attention, and why people are looking where it goes, because wherever the case is decided is going to produce a lot of fallout.

And don't forget that Sony isn't just subject to American law. There are cases in Europe also, and European law is much more favorable to the consumer. Europe, for example, has explicit laws about products "working as advertised".

HuusAsking

It should be noted the Constitutionality of the DMCA provisions were tested a decade ago by the 2nd Circuit, and they were satisfied that it was consistent with the Constitution, or at least the parts of it that were used to contest the law.

I fail to see how this case is a test of tangible property rights. It will establish no precedent as to whether when stated as licensed, software is licensed. And such legal precedent was already set in the 9th Circuit, and has yet to be overruled by the full 9th Circuit Panel or by SCOTUS.

All WIPO treaty signatory countries have anti-circumvention laws.

ONLY on another technicality. Autodesk is winning because they proved the copy of AutoCAD Vernor was hawking was part of a lease agreement. It was meant to be turned back to Autodesk after an update was delivered but got "lost". So the precedent Vernor v. Autodesk would potentially set is gone (because a sale never took place). You should look back on the news archives. Sony actually talked about registering each PS3 disc inserted so that only that PS3 could play it. Not only was there a lot of outcry over it (not the least by the likes of Blockbuster and Movie Gallery), but it was also impractical because Net penetration was much weaker back in 2005. Even now a savvy person would simply keep their PS3 offline, leaving Sony no means to know the copy got inserted into a PS3 barring some mixed read-only/recordable disc that would probably jack the pressing costs significantly and alter the whole profit margin issue).HuusAsking

It should be noted the vast majority of software including firmware is made available by way of license, and specifically states as such.

I asked what suits, I'm sure there was outcry, but I fail to see how legal proceedings would arise from an unreleased product. And even if released if fully documented that such DRM was in place then I doubt any legal proceedings would get far if someone wilfully purchased the product anyway.

Jailbreaking a PS3 is now legal in Spain partly due to other OS removal . If this goes to the EU court and is then upheld it will be legal to jailbreak your PS3 in EU member countries as EU law overides state law. As for the Geohotz case, its up to the judges to decide who is in the right here. I personally think if Geohot has the required funding and decent attorneys then he has a very good chance of winning this. Its a pity he didnt live in Europe, Sony wouldnt have a leg to stand on in this.

http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/19424/

Does anyone agree it may have been a smart move for Sony to offer full refunds of all PS3 equipment and games purchased should a user have contacted them about removal of other OS? It would likely have been less than the cost of the legal bill they are going to get and they could have prevented this whole fiasco.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]ONLY on another technicality. Autodesk is winning because they proved the copy of AutoCAD Vernor was hawking was part of a lease agreement. It was meant to be turned back to Autodesk after an update was delivered but got "lost". So the precedent Vernor v. Autodesk would potentially set is gone (because a sale never took place). You should look back on the news archives. Sony actually talked about registering each PS3 disc inserted so that only that PS3 could play it. Not only was there a lot of outcry over it (not the least by the likes of Blockbuster and Movie Gallery), but it was also impractical because Net penetration was much weaker back in 2005. Even now a savvy person would simply keep their PS3 offline, leaving Sony no means to know the copy got inserted into a PS3 barring some mixed read-only/recordable disc that would probably jack the pressing costs significantly and alter the whole profit margin issue).shinrabanshou

It should be noted the vast majority of software including firmware is made available by way of license, and specifically states as such.

I asked what suits, I'm sure there was outcry, but I fail to see how legal proceedings would arise from an unreleased product. And even if released if fully documented that such DRM was in place then I doubt any legal proceedings would get far if someone wilfully purchased the product anyway.

Where the Court of Appeals disagreed was in the step between the company and the yard sale. Autodesk presented the court with their copy of the actual software support agreement under which the company was bound. In other words, the copies given to the company were never sold in the first place. They were leased by way of that support contract. There is an important legal distinction here, especially among business software. Software leases are directly agreed between company and publisher, using pen and paper (that's why Autodesk possessed a copy of the contract). Because it was a direct signed agreement, a software lease becomes an enforceable written contractual agreement with (legally-enforceable) terms and limitations.

In other words, being essentially leased, the copies being provided were never sold in the first place. That's where Autodesk won the case. The truth was that, as part of the support contract, Autodesk had sent the company a copy of the latest version of their software (part of the contract's terms--they keep the software up to date). The company was then, according to the contract, to pack up their copy of the previous version and send it back to them. That last step never happened. So the copies found in the yard sale were in breach of contract, and since the copy were never sold to begin with, the First Sale Doctrine doesn't kick in to overrule the terms of the lease agreement.

I donated 50$. Glad i could help.GeneralShowzer

itd be funny as sin if he was in co-hoots with sony and all the funds go to lining their pockets..

:P

id rotflmao so hard if it turned out that you jsut GAVE sony $50 :P

or better yet if he starts begging again to try and not go to prison and lose everything he owns due to a collection agency..

im sorry but geohot is about as dumb as an e-vandal i know at work (he breaks into sites and messes with them for fun.. then bails)

ive been tempted to inform the authorities about him but im almsot certain they would never do anything.. and its not like he does any real harm.. rearranging your facebook wall isnt exactly a "travesty"

in ther IT industry using unwanted software or software deemed insecure or abuseable.. is room for firing or legal actions..

igf you sue wireshark or hijackthis without someone permission it can cost you your job and alot mroe in some cases.

why should altering a system with volatile software and distributing it to others (without SOMEONES permissdion) be any different.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]Vernor originally won the case because the software was believed to have been sold to the company in question, who in turn either sold or gave away the copy they had, which in turn Vernor bought in the yard sale and then flipped on eBay. The federal judge declared the license agreement unenforceable because it violated the First Sale Doctrine. He basically used a "Looks Like a Duck" argument against Autodesk's EULA: basically, if it looks like a sale and transacts like a sale, it's a sale and therefore subject to the Copyright Act and its First Sale Doctrine...in spite of anything the EULA would say.

Where the Court of Appeals disagreed was in the step between the company and the yard sale. Autodesk presented the court with their copy of the actual software support agreement under which the company was bound. In other words, the copies given to the company were never sold in the first place. They were leased by way of that support contract. There is an important legal distinction here, especially among business software. Software leases are directly agreed between company and publisher, using pen and paper (that's why Autodesk possessed a copy of the contract). Because it was a direct signed agreement, a software lease becomes an enforceable written contractual agreement with (legally-enforceable) terms and limitations.

In other words, being essentially leased, the copies being provided were never sold in the first place. That's where Autodesk won the case. The truth was that, as part of the support contract, Autodesk had sent the company a copy of the latest version of their software (part of the contract's terms--they keep the software up to date). The company was then, according to the contract, to pack up their copy of the previous version and send it back to them. That last step never happened. So the copies found in the yard sale were in breach of contract, and since the copy were never sold to begin with, the First Sale Doctrine doesn't kick in to overrule the terms of the lease agreement.

HuusAsking

As far as I'm aware:

AutoDesk does not use a signed contract, it used a click wrap license agreement, as much software does, at the point of install. AutoDesk possess a copy of their software license agreement, because they can print it out at will.

The Court deemed that the software was never sold in the first place, correct, because:

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.

Not because of any distinction between an EULA and a signed contract, as the former if agreed to is equivalent to a contract. AutoDesk does not provide free versions of upgrade software, the company upgraded for a fee.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]Vernor originally won the case because the software was believed to have been sold to the company in question, who in turn either sold or gave away the copy they had, which in turn Vernor bought in the yard sale and then flipped on eBay. The federal judge declared the license agreement unenforceable because it violated the First Sale Doctrine. He basically used a "Looks Like a Duck" argument against Autodesk's EULA: basically, if it looks like a sale and transacts like a sale, it's a sale and therefore subject to the Copyright Act and its First Sale Doctrine...in spite of anything the EULA would say.

Where the Court of Appeals disagreed was in the step between the company and the yard sale. Autodesk presented the court with their copy of the actual software support agreement under which the company was bound. In other words, the copies given to the company were never sold in the first place. They were leased by way of that support contract. There is an important legal distinction here, especially among business software. Software leases are directly agreed between company and publisher, using pen and paper (that's why Autodesk possessed a copy of the contract). Because it was a direct signed agreement, a software lease becomes an enforceable written contractual agreement with (legally-enforceable) terms and limitations.

In other words, being essentially leased, the copies being provided were never sold in the first place. That's where Autodesk won the case. The truth was that, as part of the support contract, Autodesk had sent the company a copy of the latest version of their software (part of the contract's terms--they keep the software up to date). The company was then, according to the contract, to pack up their copy of the previous version and send it back to them. That last step never happened. So the copies found in the yard sale were in breach of contract, and since the copy were never sold to begin with, the First Sale Doctrine doesn't kick in to overrule the terms of the lease agreement.

shinrabanshou

As far as I'm aware:

AutoDesk does not use a signed contract, it used a click wrap license agreement, as much software does, at the point of install. AutoDesk possess a copy of their software license agreement, because they can print it out at will.

The Court deemed that the software was never sold in the first place, correct, because:

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.

Not because of any distinction between an EULA and a signed contract, as the former if agreed to is equivalent to a contract. AutoDesk does not provide free versions of upgrade software, the company upgraded for a fee.

After all, if such a ruling were to move forward, then gaming software will be the next to be targeted. You can be pretty sure companies like GameStop won't take the suit sitting down. And what's to stop the music and movie industries from making similar moves to ban resale of their products, thus criminalizing the seconhand music/movie trade? And what about libraries where most of their books are donated? The current ruling as it stands could be seen to be as essentially an end run around the First Sale Doctrine, so there's still room for argument.

Does anyone agree it may have been a smart move for Sony to offer full refunds of all PS3 equipment and games purchased should a user have contacted them about removal of other OS? It would likely have been less than the cost of the legal bill they are going to get and they could have prevented this whole fiasco.

That's not how I read it originally. It's been my understanding that some software, especially high-end stuff like AutoCAD, may have special written contracts that are agreed directly between publisher and user. Only under such direct contracts (where each side signs) can certain restrictions be made. In which case, the case is far from final since this is likely to be appealed to the full CoA, if not the SCoTUS. Either one could still rule that the lower court had it right the first time, that the Copyright Act overrules the EULA. SCoTUS could also nullify the ruling in other ways: such as by stating that contracts of this nature cannot be shrink-wrapped and must be made directly.

After all, if such a ruling were to move forward, then gaming software will be the next to be targeted. You can be pretty sure companies like GameStop won't take the suit sitting down. And what's to stop the music and movie industries from making similar moves to ban resale of their products, thus criminalizing the seconhand music/movie trade? And what about libraries where most of their books are donated? The current ruling as it stands could be seen to be as essentially an end run around the First Sale Doctrine, so there's still room for argument.

HuusAsking

The Vernor test as it's been dubbed, comprising those three components I listed, was a direct quote from the ruling, which can be read here if you want.En banc consideration is being sought but has yet to be granted, and I don't see how it would overturn the ruling, as the ruling is technically consistent with the law. The rights owner has the ability to contractually shape the manner in which they monetize their creative works - this is not a novel concept.

I would agree that the contract in question, as a "shrinkwrap contract" may be considered unconscionable as it may be deemed a contract of adhesion, however AutoDesk offers a full refund for those who choose not to accept the Software License Agreement, as far as I'm aware - so that may not be sufficient.

For En banc consideration to be granted and to overrule this finding, it would essentially need to overrule another case in the same circuit that reaffirmed this finding, MDY Industries LLC vs Blizzard Entertainment and Vivendi Games Inc.

The last case before SCOTUS wherein the First Sale Doctrine was tested the Court found no verdict and set no precedent but simply reaffirmed the lower court decision.

There are general exemptions for libraries and archives, so they're not relevant in any precedent set, but there are implicit implications for other software and may be for other digital media.

The First Sale Doctrine as it was intended and digital works do not mesh well. The Doctrine as intended was meant to provide protection against copyright infringement claim by rights holders in the instance of tangible properties, i.e. one sale-one copy. The problem with software and other digital works because of their nature is that it can result in one sale-multiple copies. The laws as they stand should probably be re-examined to properly consider the differences between modern tangible and intangible properties and property in 1908.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]That's not how I read it originally. It's been my understanding that some software, especially high-end stuff like AutoCAD, may have special written contracts that are agreed directly between publisher and user. Only under such direct contracts (where each side signs) can certain restrictions be made. In which case, the case is far from final since this is likely to be appealed to the full CoA, if not the SCoTUS. Either one could still rule that the lower court had it right the first time, that the Copyright Act overrules the EULA. SCoTUS could also nullify the ruling in other ways: such as by stating that contracts of this nature cannot be shrink-wrapped and must be made directly.

After all, if such a ruling were to move forward, then gaming software will be the next to be targeted. You can be pretty sure companies like GameStop won't take the suit sitting down. And what's to stop the music and movie industries from making similar moves to ban resale of their products, thus criminalizing the seconhand music/movie trade? And what about libraries where most of their books are donated? The current ruling as it stands could be seen to be as essentially an end run around the First Sale Doctrine, so there's still room for argument.

shinrabanshou

The Vernor test as it's been dubbed, comprising those three components I listed, was a direct quote from the ruling, which can be read here if you want.En banc consideration is being sought but has yet to be granted, and I don't see how it would overturn the ruling, as the ruling is technically consistent with the law. The rights owner has the ability to contractually shape the manner in which they monetize their creative works - this is not a novel concept.

I would agree that the contract in question, as a "shrinkwrap contract" may be considered unconscionable as it may be deemed a contract of adhesion, however AutoDesk offers a full refund for those who choose not to accept the Software License Agreement, as far as I'm aware - so that may not be sufficient.

For En banc consideration to be granted and to overrule this finding, it would essentially need to overrule another case in the same circuit that reaffirmed this finding, MDY Industries LLC vs Blizzard Entertainment and Vivendi Games Inc.

The last case before SCOTUS wherein the First Sale Doctrine was tested the Court found no verdict and set no precedent but simply reaffirmed the lower court decision.

There are general exemptions for libraries and archives, so they're not relevant in any precedent set, but there are implicit implications for other software and may be for other digital media.

The First Sale Doctrine as it was intended and digital works do not mesh well. The Doctrine as intended was meant to provide protection against copyright infringement claim by rights holders in the instance of tangible properties, i.e. one sale-one copy. The problem with software and other digital works because of their nature is that it can result in one sale-multiple copies. The laws as they stand should probably be re-examined to properly consider the differences between modern tangible and intangible properties and property in 1908.

Wow. That was fast. What if he actually wins?

Kingpin0114

I look forward to toasting to some vintage wine when Sony does win.

[QUOTE="Kingpin0114"]

Wow. That was fast. What if he actually wins?

shadow8585

I'm pretty much on Sony's side with this one. What Geohot did is in no way beneficial for the industry.

That last paragraph is exactly why I'm hoping SCOTUS hears the Vernor case. Clarification is needed, and there are no bills before Congress with that purpose in mind (not that I trust a Republican House to craft copyrights bills to favor individuals--they favor business rights more than individual rights). In this era of increasing digital distribution (Steam et al), ground rules need to be set down, and ideally people should have the right to be able to offload their property (be it physical or electronic) as they see fit (after all, if it looks like a sale and transacts like a sale, it's a sale--and licenses, like contracts, can themselves be salabe goods). Otherwise, you redefine what constitutes a sale, and this can extend back through to real property. And the one sale-multiple copy idea? Bull chips. What about software bundles in a box? What's to stop you from reselling the component pieces? Or even the entire bundle?HuusAsking

I fail to see how this applies to tangible property. Everything in the case is regarding the status of intangible property.

With this case, the issue is not whether a transaction grants ownership of the plastic of a disk, it's whether a transaction grants ownership of the copy.

It is a content creator and IP rights owner's prerogative to determine how they want to commercialise and distribute their creations.

It is a content consumer's choice whether to agree to the terms of that transaction and support the means of commercialisation.

Licenses can be saleable provided doing so does not violate the terms of the contract.

What do you mean "bull chips" to the one sale-multiple copies idea? That is the basis for this ruling, in effect multiple copies of the software were distributed from one sale of license. Digital media are highly susceptible to a single sale, be it specified as license or transfer of rights ownership, resulting in multiple copies. Someone can purchase software, install it and on-sell it.

With digital works what constitutes a sale may need to be redefined, at least with regard to the First Sale Doctrine, as it's incongruous with the intent of the original century old ruling, wherein a single copy, amounts to a single copy.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]That last paragraph is exactly why I'm hoping SCOTUS hears the Vernor case. Clarification is needed, and there are no bills before Congress with that purpose in mind (not that I trust a Republican House to craft copyrights bills to favor individuals--they favor business rights more than individual rights). In this era of increasing digital distribution (Steam et al), ground rules need to be set down, and ideally people should have the right to be able to offload their property (be it physical or electronic) as they see fit (after all, if it looks like a sale and transacts like a sale, it's a sale--and licenses, like contracts, can themselves be salabe goods). Otherwise, you redefine what constitutes a sale, and this can extend back through to real property. And the one sale-multiple copy idea? Bull chips. What about software bundles in a box? What's to stop you from reselling the component pieces? Or even the entire bundle?shinrabanshou

I fail to see how this applies to tangible property. Everything in the case is regarding the status of intangible property.

With this case, the issue is not whether a transaction grants ownership of the plastic of a disk, it's whether a transaction grants ownership of the copy.

It is a content creator and IP rights owner's prerogative to determine how they want to commercialise and distribute their creations.

It is a content consumer's choice whether to agree to the terms of that transaction and support the means of commercialisation.

Licenses can be saleable provided doing so does not violate the terms of the contract.

What do you mean "bull chips" to the one sale-multiple copies idea? That is the basis for this ruling, in effect multiple copies of the software were distributed from one sale of license. Digital media are highly susceptible to a single sale, be it specified as license or transfer of rights ownership, resulting in multiple copies. Someone can purchase software, install it and on-sell it.

With digital works what constitutes a sale may need to be redefined, at least with regard to the First Sale Doctrine, as it's incongruous with the intent of the original century old ruling, wherein a single copy, amounts to a single copy.

I went on to his blog and saw that he was asking for donations. I never thought he would win over Sony though, wow!Ewan-Lumsden

Go Geo!

funny how people are so eager to throw their consumer rights away just to promote the life of a 5 year old console.

hacker ≠ pirate

bflexholla

Go Geo!

funny how people are so eager to throw their consumer rights away just to promote the life of a 5 year old console.

Scoob64

Wow. That was fast. What if he actually wins?

hacker ≠ pirate