[QUOTE="SUD123456"]
It has already been decided in US Federal Court that defeating a security measure under the DMCA does not automatically constitute a copyright violation. It has already been decided in same said court that the DMCA was never intended to be read independently and that the authors of the DMCA had meant it to be read in conjunction with copyright law. The court ruled that it was dependent upon what the purpose was in defeating the security measure and secondly, once the security measure was defeated was there an actual violation of the copyright act regarding the material that the secuirty measure was designed to protect?
Because of the above, it is not at all clear that defeating the PS3 security system is a violation of copyright. This is one of the main items that will be tested in this action.
What is clear is that the kind of blanket statements that imply defeating security systems is somehow piracyare incorrect. Just like you are incorrectly conflating piracy with a property right. Piracy is automatically an infringement of someone else's property rights. The problem in this case is that there is no evidence to suggest that Hotz committed piracy. What he did was defeat a security measure. Where I think he is on more tenuous ground is making the defeat of the security measure public. However, none of that implies piracy and it is very debateable whether this is a legal jailbreak or not.
hakanakumono
When I referred to "piracy," I was not referring to Geohotz' actions, but the user who listed emulation.
Emulation isn't piracy. If they released a PS2 emulator for the PS3, I would download that so fast so I could finally get rid of my PS2, and that wouldn't be piracy. I hate not having a backwards compatable PS3. =/
Log in to comment