Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

image

A U.S. District Court has awarded Sony a temporary restraining order against PlayStation 3 hacker George Hotz.

The case against George Hotz, AKA Geohot, the man who posted the PlayStation 3 root key online earlier this month, seemed to sputter before it even got started when the judge in the case expressed concern over whether it was appropriate to try the case in California, since Hotz lives in New Jersey and committed his alleged crime in that state. "Serious questions have been raised here today," Judge Susan Illston said at the time.

Those questions appear to be answered, at least for the moment. In a ruling made yesterday, the Judge declared that her court "may exercise specific jurisdiction over Hotz because he purposefully directed his activities at the forum state." She also noted, however, that Hotz's attorney had previously stated his intention to file a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction and said that he may "present his jurisdictional challenges on a fuller factual record."

With jurisdiction established, the Judge granted Sony its temporary restraining order against Hotz. "After consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that a temporary restraining order is warranted," Illston wrote. "Plaintiff has submitted substantial evidence showing that defendant George Hotz has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Plaintiff has also submitted evidence demonstrating that plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, and that the balance of hardships favors plaintiff."

The restraining order prevents Hotz from developing, offering or linking to any PlayStation 3 circumvention technology or related material, or "assisting, facilitating or encouraging others" to do the same. The Court also ordered Hotz not to destroy or alter any records or files related to the case, and that he "retrieve any circumvention devices or any information relating thereto which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to the Defendants or third parties." That last bit seems to me like it might be a little tricky.

Finally, Hotz was given ten business days to "deliver for impoundment any computers, hard drives, CD-ROMs, DVDs, USB stick, and any other storage devices on which any circumvention devices are stored in Defendant Hotz's possession, custody or control."

The judge also ordered both sides to settle on a briefing schedule and hearing date on Sony's motion for a preliminary injunction against Hotz and Hotz's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by no later than February 1. Judge Illston's ruling and the temporary restraining order are both available in PDF format from PSX-Scene.

via: Eurogamer

Permalink

Bloody DMCA.

Too little, too late. The damage is done, Sony. Suing is pointless. Just fix any security holes you can, and try to move on.

First off, this is bullshit.

Secondly, how the fuck does one "retrieve" information they "communicated" to a third party? Men in Black style memory wiping?

Sony can scream they're "suffer(ing) irreparable harm" all they want, but the information is already out there. They can't do a thing to stop it now.

danpascooch:
First off, this is bullshit.

Secondly, how the fuck does one "retrieve" information they gave to a third party? Men in Black style memory wiping?

Don't fucking tempt fate, man. Next thing you know you'll have Sony ninjas and shit breaking through your window.

On topic, I do believe that this is quite bullshit, and that Sony should just grow up and act its age.

So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

This whole case is a bloody waste of money, wtf does Sony expect to get out of this guy? You know they're going to want to ask for some ungodly sum of money as compensation that this guy could never hope to pay.

I agree with Sony's right to protect it's IP, but instead of hunting one lone hacker just to make an example of him they should be focusing on how to fill the security holes. Sony is really over reacting if you ask me, a simple C&D would have sufficed here.(and not made them look like such tools)

Won't stop anything.

Might scare off a few people, though.

Isnt the hack already on the internet? Taking his stuff seems pointless. Also, i dont get why Sony should get to dictate what and what you cant do with a consle YOU own. The PSN yes, your consle no.

Way to create a Martyr there Sony. Are you taking advice from Bobby Kotick now?

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Daemascus:
Isnt the hack already on the internet? Taking his stuff seems pointless. Also, i dont get why Sony should get to dictate what and what you cant do with a consle YOU own. The PSN yes, your consle no.

I think because many will use the hacks to hack into the PSN, like it or not, the majority will.

KEM10:

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

That's bullshit. It's a hardware modification, which is allowed under the DMCA. It's why jailbreaking is legal. THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING THING.

This is very, very, very, very, VERY BAD.

Xzi:

KEM10:

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

Ahh, but the Lord Sony giveth and the Lord Sony taketh away. You just have to accept why bad OS happens to good platforms.

RMoD:
That's bullshit. It's a hardware modification, which is allowed under the DMCA. It's why jailbreaking is legal. THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING THING.

This is very, very, very, very, VERY BAD.

Modification of an access control mechanism isn't necessarily allowed under the DMCA. It depends on the intent and/or knowledge that the modifier had when they did the modification. If they did the modification for the purpose of engaging in piracy or knew that the modification they were doing was more than likely to be used for the purposes of piracy, then they're on the DMCA's hook.

It's obviously not over, and in this whole mess, I honestly have no idea who I should "root" for (there's a pun in that somewhere...) or whether there's any "rooting" to do at all. It's a giant mess that nobody is going to come out clean.

Xzi:

KEM10:

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

The worth of that defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

Agreed. Any company that is hacked by a person should hire that person to beef security.

JDKJ:

Xzi:

KEM10:

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

The worth of that defense defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

Irrelevant. If his lawyer can prove that was his intent, the case will be dismissed.

While easier access to piracy on the platform may be a side-effect of his actions, it's one that is unavoidable in the process restoring said functionality. Piracy is also not the basis of the case that Sony has brought upon Hotz.

Xzi:

JDKJ:

Xzi:

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

The worth of that defense defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

Irrelevant. If his lawyer can prove that was his intent, the case will be dismissed.

While easier access to piracy on the platform may be a side-effect of his actions, it's one that is unavoidable in the process restoring said functionality. Piracy is also not the basis of the case that Sony has brought upon Hotz.

No, I believe they're proceeding under the DMCA's provision prohibiting the modification of an access control mechanism. And that provision says that if the modification at issue is more likely than not to further the purpose of piracy, then the modification is prohibited and a defendant so accused can be found liable if the plaintiff can carry that burden of proof. If Sony can prove that the modification information at issue was more likely than not disseminated in furtherance of piracy (which doesn't strike me as an impossible burden to carry in this case given, as you point out, that increased possibility of piracy is an unavoidable side-effect of the modification), then the defendant saying that he did it for a particular purpose not in furtherance of piracy doesn't really matter. What matters is the likelihood of piracy. Which, in this case, does appear to be a substantial likelihood.

I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is the modification of an access control mechanism...

RMoD:
I'm pretty sure jailbreaking is the modification of an access control mechanism...

But your analysis can't stop there. Your next question needs to be: "For what purpose, legal or illegal?" If the likely purposes served are benign and legal, then there's no DMCA violation. However, if the likely purposes served are illegal, then the defendant could well be liable.

Reed Spacer:
Sony can scream they're "suffer(ing) irreparable harm" all they want, but the information is already out there. They can't do a thing to stop it now.

Except send a strong message to anyone that wants to continue.

You fuck with us, we'll fuck you up.

I mean.... I'm not saying that will work, but I think that's the point.

It isn't like this case will effect Sony much. Even if Hotz is found innocent (which doesn't appear likely) he'll have nothing to his name after this. SONY DESTROYS ALL!!!!

-.-

JDKJ:

Xzi:

JDKJ:

The worth of that defense defense depends on whether or not simply restoring that functionality was more likely than not to further piracy. If it's more likely than not to further piracy, then it ain't no kinda defense.

Irrelevant. If his lawyer can prove that was his intent, the case will be dismissed.

While easier access to piracy on the platform may be a side-effect of his actions, it's one that is unavoidable in the process restoring said functionality. Piracy is also not the basis of the case that Sony has brought upon Hotz.

No, I believe they're proceeding under the DMCA's provision prohibiting the modification of an access control mechanism. And that provision says that if the modification at issue is more likely than not to further the purpose of piracy, then the modification is prohibited and a defendant so accused can be found liable if the plaintiff can carry that burden of proof. If Sony can prove that the modification information at issue was more likely than not disseminated in furtherance of piracy (which doesn't strike me as an impossible burden to carry in this case given, as you point out, that increased possibility of piracy is an unavoidable side-effect of the modification), then the defendant saying that he did it for a particular purpose not in furtherance of piracy doesn't really matter. What matters is the likelihood of piracy. Which, in this case, does appear to be a substantial likelihood.

Hmmm, one could argue that Sony could be sued for the exact same thing, since piracy is a very likely side effect of the creation of the ps3... Not saying that it is possible to do that but the way that rule is formulated makes it seem plausible.
The same thing could be said about every game produced for any platform and where do we then end up?

P.S. That is why the DMCA is a load of bull. It is way too easy to misuse.

As was expected, the second this piece of shit released his work to the net, it was used for exactly the purposes pretty much everyone knew it would be, but Hotz and his hooligan friends claimed were not their intent. You reap what you sow.

So if I understand this right, the COURT has decided that even though YOU BOUGHT a playstation, SONY still OWNS it.

image

What's done is done Sony. This just makes you look even worse.

And any thoughts I had on buying a PS3 with my Federal Aid have been eradicated by this article posting.

I don't see why people want to fuck with shit like this anyway. If you wanted a computer, just buy a computer. The only reason to jailbreak/root is to steal shit.

I know there is a god complex, maybe the urge to mess with things in order to get free stuff is the 'nerd complex'.

Its a hack, and its been on the internet for more than 10 minutes. Based on those two rules I can say as a fact that it is now on 10,000 different web sites.
Sorry Sony, day late and a dollar short.

Sony, how dare you take protective measures.

Xzi:

KEM10:

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

That's part of the plea bargain.

Seriously, if more of the hackers were hired to work for Sony or MS, I believe that the system hacking would be a lot more difficult. That and the want to hack might also be eliminated (out of the box Linux ready PS3 anyone?).

Plea bargain? Lol. This thing will get dismissed, no question. Hotz's lawyer has a million different defense strategies he can use here. The least of which not being that Hotz was simply restoring functionality clearly advertised on the console box to the PS3 (other OS).

Did the PS3 Slim box really advertise that? Not trying to sound argumentative, honestly curious.

EcksTeaSea:
So Sony is going after a guy who cracked their security? Shit they should ask him how he did it and develop something better off that, not go after him with a lawsuit.

Agreed - that's how major corporations improved their online and IP security a decade ago.

Pathetically, in our modern age, any time a company runs across such a situation, their "fix" is to go to court instead of trying to learn from their failures. Corporations have become too proud, and our judicial system isn't helping the matter by constantly catering to their every whim and desire.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.