|
|
| Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party - Updated |
 |
|
Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:23 AM EST
|
This will make a lot of you feel better. The parties have come up with a stipulation in Sony Computer Entertainment American v. Hotz regarding what Hotz must do about handing over his computers. The new Preliminary Injunction [PDF] now says that he is to turn his materials over to a "neutral" third party, not to SCEA's lawyers, and after the neutral party combs through them, it all is returned to Hotz. All but whatever they "segregate" out of them. He won't get that back until the end of the litigation, should he prevail, which this court at least currently thinks is less likely than that Sony will. There will be a hearing on Hotz's motion to dismiss on April 8, 2011.
Here's the Stipulation and the exhibit with the terms of the preliminary injunction and the computer hand-over:
02/17/2011 - 83 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ODER RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Preliminary Injunction and Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)(Gaudreau, Holly) (Filed on 2/17/2011) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
Here's the meat of the stipulation:
1.
The Preliminary Injunction shall be entered in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto.
2. SCEA shall file its Opposition to Defendant Hotz’s Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2011;
3. Defendant Hotz shall file his Reply, if any, on March 25, 2011.
4. The hearing on Defendant Hotz’s Motion to Dismiss shall be held on April 8, 2011. And here's what the preliminary injunction reads like now, from the exhibit:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees,
attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or acting in
concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be enjoined from:
1. Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting,
installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any circumvention technology,
products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, components or part thereof,
including but not limited to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm ("ECDSA") Keys, encryption and/or decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program, Signing Tools, 3.55 Firmware Jailbreak, root keys, and/or any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to and/or copying of the PS3 System and/or enable compatibility of unauthorized copies of other copyrighted works with the PS3 System (hereinafter,
"Circumvention Devices").
2. Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for
sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the
public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention
Devices.
3. Engaging in acts of circumvention of TPMs in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.
4. Engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PlayStation 2 Network ("PSN") in order to obtain, access, or transmit any program, code, information or
command therein.
5. Publishing, posting, or distributing any information, code, program, instructions, video, or other material obtained by circumventing TPMs in the PS3 System or by engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PSN.
6. Assisting, facilitating or encouraging others to engage in the conduct set
forth above in 1-5.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hotz, his officers, employees, attorneys or representatives, and any and all other persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, with notice of this Order, shall preserve, and not destroy, erase, delete, dispose of, or alter any documents or records, in whatever format, including electronic
documents, computer files, computer discs and drives, that relate to, reflect, record, or contain any information regarding the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, advertising, purchase, sale, offer to sell, trafficking, import, export, installation, payment, storage, and/or shipment of any and all of the Circumvention Devices, or any
communications with any party concerning the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, advertising, purchase, sale, offer to sell, trafficking, import, export, installation payment, storage, and/or shipment of any and all of the Circumvention Devices.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hotz is required to deliver his computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB sticks, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored (but not his Sony PS3 consoles) to a third party neutral selected by the parties for the purpose of isolating, segregating and/or removing the information on those devices related to Defendant Hotz's circumvention of the TPMs in the PS3 System. Defendant Hotz's devices shall be promptly returned to him
after the information has been segregated and removed from those devices. The logistics
and protocol for this impoundment shall be worked out by the parties with Magistrate
Judge Spero.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $10,000.00 posted by SCEA on January 27, 2011 as security for the Court's issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order shall suffice for this Preliminary Injunction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of this case unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties or ordered by the Court.
So it won't be Sony pawing through his stuff. The $10,000 posted by Sony is for the purpose of making Hotz whole at the end if he wins. The court knows at this early point only that it believes Sony will win from what it currently knows, but more could happen.
One thing that will definitely happen is the hearing on the Hotz motion to dismiss. If that were to be granted, then it's back to Go and Sony will then have to file in New Jersey, where Hotz actually resides. Please note that paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 technically apply to Hotz and those acting "in privity" with him, but in real life apply to the world, including you and me, so please don't post any links to anything "selling, offering for
sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the
public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking" in what the court would view as "circumvention devices", etc. The language is very broad, and includes not "publishing, posting, or distributing any information, code, program, instructions, video, or other material obtained by circumventing TPMs in the PS3 System or by engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PSN" and not "assisting, facilitating or encouraging others to engage in" anything listed in the five paragraphs 1-5. I want to report on the case, not become part of it. Thanks for being extra careful. You see how Sony litigates, so if in doubt, please don't.
Update: More filings:
02/18/2011 - 84 - ORDER ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CONTINUING MOTION. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
02/18/2011 - Set/Reset Deadlines as to 57 MOTION to Dismiss FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
So the judge signed the stipulated order, and the hearing on Hotz's motion to dismiss has been reset for April 8 at 9 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:37 AM EST |
The commenter deleted his comment [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM EST |
| On topic comments frowned up on in this section. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- openness vs. lock-in at the rightpondian parliament - Authored by: 400guy on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:03 PM EST
- Sony's new upgrade term - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Where is the Apple Nerd Rage? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 02:35 PM EST
- Market Summary for NOVL - 02/18/2011 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:25 PM EST
- Sony OtherOS Class Action Litigation - Authored by: cward24 on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:40 PM EST
- Peter Sunde talks to Kim Hill - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 05:50 PM EST
- Dell marketing stunt gone awry - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 06:12 PM EST
- High school boy refuses to wrestle girl - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 06:27 PM EST
- Crowdsourcing plagiarism - Authored by: clemenstimpler on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 07:23 PM EST
- Off-topic Comments - Authored by: gnufreex on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 07:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:39 AM EST |
| Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST |
Make the comment title the newspick title, and include a link to the original
article since they scrolls off rather quickly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rocky on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM EST |
I'm glad it worked out this way, but really, shouldn't the order have been
written this way from the beginning? The point of civil cases is that the
parties are adversarial, which means neither can trust the other. For any kind
of handing over materials to be forensically examined, I would think the default
from the court would HAVE to be for this to be done by a third party because an
adversarial party doing their own forensic investigation would always be under
suspicion of planting something or fudging the evidence. It just seems really
odd to me that any judge would show such favoritism to any party to say,
"Yeah, you can examine the other party's stuff, and then I'll just believe
whatever incriminating evidence you say you found on it."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:53 AM EST |
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:56 AM EST |
| "You see how Sony litigates, so if in doubt, please don't." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM EST |
The order includes:
... any other technologies that enable
unauthorized access to and/or copying of the PS3 System ...
1.
What technologies are these?
2. What is unauthorized access?
3. Who
mandates what access is unauthorized?
4. Without this knowledge, how can
anyone comply with the order?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:18 PM EST |
So Hotz is required to preserve all information relating the case, whilst also
required to hand over his hardware to a third party who are expected to remove
(at least some of) this same information.
I'm sure there will be precedence for this. So how does he answer discovery with
regard to the deleted information? How does he prepare a defense that may rely
on the deleted information? For example if he is accused of revealing an
encryption key, can he defend himself by claiming that others had already
revealed the key, if he can't prove it from his records?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nsomos on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:28 PM EST |
| Gather your comments about propelled seating appliances here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: om1er on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM EST |
For the Third Party Neutral, may I suggest the parties consider the eminent Marc
Rochkind?
---
March 23, 2010 - Judgement day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SL on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 01:53 PM EST |
It appears that Sony does not consider a PS3 to be either a "computer"
or a "storage device" but a "console" (whatever that is). By
excepting the PS3's that Hotz may posess they seem to have left Hotz with any
copies of alleged "circumvention devices" that may be stored on said
"consoles". In fact the order does not seem to preclude copying data
FROM existing storage devices ONTO a PS3 prior to turning over the storage
devices as long as they remain in the posession of Hotz since that would not
"destroy, erase, delete, dispose of, or alter" any data. Nor would
that action "transmit", "publish, post or distribute"
anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Define transmit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 02:32 PM EST
- Consolation - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Consolation - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 20 2011 @ 11:37 AM EST
- Yes!!! - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, February 20 2011 @ 12:40 PM EST
- Saw - Authored by: xtifr on Monday, February 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM EST |
That you are afraid of people posting some Prime Numbers ...
very sad.
It doesnt help if courts sort this out years from now the
damage is done now, and its not done to sony.
(Sorry but this makes me at least 100 times more angry than
all the RIAA stuff that was happening the last years, and
the worst part of it is that people told your lawmakers
befarehand that THIS would happen ... stupid :( )
BTW: would we be allowed to link to
http://primes.utm.edu/lists/? Ups to late ... now what about
indexing these lists? What is needed to make clear just HOW
wrong this is. Why are you afraid of this nonsense ...
Why are you looking away? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 03:36 PM EST |
I'm glad to see that they're doing this in a more sensible way. I just wish
they'd done this from the start.
I wonder what Sony is going to do about all those news sites where people have
linked to the keys and whatnot, though? I've seen dozens where people linked to
various things that contain the key. Also, there's the minor fact that Sony
itself published part of some of those keys in court documents. Can people
still link to those?
Or will Hotz end up getting blamed for what everyone else did?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM EST |
| This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me that limits the potential harm to
either party. If the neutral third party does limit their segregation to PS3
related activities then I think it's reasonable.
It had seemed to me that
Sony was trying to pull a fast-one and get their hands directly on geohot's
equipment so they could go deep diving to find something else, perhaps totally
unrelated, to persecute him with. I don't doubt for an instant that this was
Lord Sony's intent but I'm relieved to hear that their nasty plan was
foiled.
---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:25 PM EST |
If I am reading this correctly, Hotz can't comply with the order.
Part 1: Destroy any and all information related to the keys anywhere you can.
Part 2: Deliver your computer unaltered to this third party to copy stuff.
If he deletes the key first, he violates part 2. If he delivers it as is, and
the third
party makes yet another copy, he violates part 1.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:27 PM EST |
Item 2 of the TRO bans him from doing acts that have been declared as legal:
jailbreaking phones.
The judge still don't get it right. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 05:08 PM EST |
This court/judge has been awefully one-sided thus far.. a little _too_ one
sided if you ask me, when there seemed to be some pretty basic facts against
sony - yet sony kept receiving the handout.
If the third-party decision did not come about I would be forced to start using
some stronger language and suggest some improprietary for that would seem to be
the only way to describe it - short of stupidity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- so far - Authored by: reiisi on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 07:40 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM EST |
The language/tone of the TRO infers that Hotz's actions have been already been
determined as unlawful. The broadness of the restrictions say loudly that the
judge already believes Hotz is using all his technology/skill to circumvent
copyright on all manner of things. It's an incredible imposition placed on a
person who has barely started the legal process surrounding SECA's claims.
Charles from Oz.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 09:26 PM EST |
| As whoever57 noted above, item two of the preliminary injunction
prohibits geohot from engaging in otherwise-legal activities. I thought it
would be fun to compile a list of some of the activities he can no longer do
just to point out the absurdity of this part of the order. I believe Lord Sony
is purposely trying to confuse the judge into assuming that most, if not all,
circumvention devices are illegal. The truth is that the vast majority of
circumvention devices are perfectly legal.
This
email highlights two of the phrases in the DMCA that Lord Sony wants this
judge to ignore. They succeeded in getting the judge to overlook these phrases
(and more) in this part of her order. The other thing that got overlooked was
the part of that says the device has to circumvent something that is protecting
a right of a copyright owner under the DMCA.
So you don't have to scroll up
to see what I'm talking about here is the overbroad item:
2.
Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for
sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting,
offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise
trafficking in any Circumvention Devices.
The phrase "any
Circumvention Devices" covers a lot of territory, most of which is otherwise
completely legal.
Perhaps Lord Sony and/or the judge were just using some sort
of legal shorthand where "Circumvention Devices" actually means "Circumvention
Devices that were outlawed by the DMCA". But since other items in the list
explicitly specify the PS3, the lack of specificity in this item must have been
intentional (or a horrendous oversight, or both).
Please don't post links
or information that could get PJ in trouble due to this ridiculous order.
For
example, whoever57 already mentioned that this covers iPhone jailbreaking
which, due to the Librarian of Congress exemption, is perfectly legal. But since
whoever57 didn't give detailed information about iPhone jailbreaking, I
don't think that post will get PJ into trouble.
I'll add that geohot is now
prohibited from buying or selling Bic pens since they can be used to circumvent
a Kryptonite bicycle lock.
---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:47 PM EST |
(Item 4) I am pretty sure he authorized himself to access his own PS3 System. [I
notice that they stopped calling it the PlayStation 3 Computer and now its a
"system".] And since they added "any command therein" he
can't even turn the thing off now.
(item 3) Mr Hotz never "circumvention of TPMs in the PS3 System to access,
obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works" He obtained and accessed
the copyrighted works entirely without "circumventing" any
"TPM". He bought or was gifted the PS/3 and he downloaded the firmware
from some approved venue, whatever that may be, and none of that circumvented a
thing.
(whole case) Publishing the key doesn't "circumvent" anything, it
allows one to operate the thing as designed and implemented. Possessing the key
doesn't allow grater access to any copyrighted work than was provided by SCEA et
al. Its not like a PS3 game or firmware loads differently or faster if you have
the key in your wallet, and there is no place to "insert the key" in
the normal access of any work copyrighted by SCEA or any affiliate.
Use of the key may allow "unauthorized [BY SCEA]" loading of code into
a PlayStation 3 Computer, by the owners of said computer, but that action is not
enjoined by the TRO at all.
And using the key in that manner doesn't _circumvent_ the loader, it _fully_ and
_normally_ uses the loader in place (e.g. not copied, accessed, transcribed, nor
any other verb but "to use") exactly as implemented by non-SCEA Sony.
As near as I can tell from the technical descriptions there are _no_ legally
compliant "TPM"s in the PlayStation at all. All the _measures_
implemented prevent programs from accessing hardware, but _none_ of the measures
prevent hardware from accessing programs.
That is the PS3 can (and indeed _must_) read the code it will not load, but it
will not load the disks it does not like.
Since, by definition, the hardware and firmware always likes the code provided
by SCEA et al, the only thing that publishing the key does is "trick"
the hardware into "liking" the code _not_ _provided_ by SCEA.
SCEA has no interest or domain over code the do not provide.
Mr. Hotz actions _never_ changed or change the chain of exclusion that keeps
non-sony code off of your hardware.
It's like prosecuting someone for "illegal use of a firearm" because
they bought an old empty holster and filled it with decorative glass. That is,
there was never a gun involved at all, but there are enough gun-words floating
around to confuse the natives.
So I'll say it again. _Nothing_ Hotz did here changes the way the PS3 does or
does not load any single piece of PS3 software. Not anywhere. Not ever.
That's not a "fine distinction" it is the meat of the law and the
case.
Hotz' lawyers need to keep hammering on one simple question: what piece of SCEA
et al software can now be run on the PS3, that could not previously be run on
the PS3, because of Mr. Hotz action?
Answer: None.
Followup: What piece of SCEA et al software can now be run on a non-PS3 computer
that could not previously be run on a non-PS3 computer because of Mr. Hotz
action?
Answer: None.
Not one single other thing mentioned by anyone is material to the question of
whether Mr. Hotz actions are actionable under copyright law.
All the other words are smokescreen and an unhappy corporation that got caught
engaging in trying to control hardware they do not own, again, just like with
the root-kit.
IMHO of course.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 02:47 AM EST |
Don't worry, they are not covered by the injunction.
Don't play games, though!
---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Yes, they hit the ground. The lawyers are now taking them to the centre of
the Earth. The 'centre of the Earth' is irony.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 04:20 AM EST |
In the TRO accepted by GeoHot apparrently on behalf of the world, does the list
of banned items extend to all items fitting the words, or just such items
specifically adapted for PS3 work?
For instance are we all banned from trafficing in generic ECDSA code or generic
signing tools just because such generic tools CAN potentially be used against a
PS3?
That would be very bad indeed as they have then just outlawed major areas of
technology required in the modern world and included by default in all current
general purpose operating systems.
I am not encouraging anything here, nor linking, IANAL, TINLA
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 11:03 AM EST |
Sony tries to burn witches. Please your Honor, don't let them turn you over to
take your part.
It really is witch hunting. George Hotz had done something. Something that looks
to most people, even educated people, like magic. Even those managers at Sony
still do believe their system is safe and Hotz had used some magic. They asked
the court to find the magic and destroy it. And everything is alright. Is it?
This lawsuit is about education, knowledge, intelligence and a gifted mind. How
could Sony go along and believe, that Hotz can't do this again, isn't able any
more? Because he used magic that will be found and destroyed? He can, because he
is well educated, smart and able to. Even if the court doesn't allow him to do
it again, he can teach other people the basics and light the way. This is the
beginning, because it is not about magic but knowledge.
There is only one way to save some time for Sony: Lobotomize Hotz. Will the
court do that? Sony: You can't un-think knowledge.
There are some people at Sony, who know that the crypto system isn't safe 100%.
That there is always a chance to break it. Guess the private key, i.e. But the
Sony manager are not able to understand that. They need a 100% bullet proofed
secure system and took the best they can get. And believed in it. It looks like
they forgotten the most primitive basics: Revoke keys.
This case is witch hunting. Because Sony and the people who made the DMCA
believed that there are ways that are 100% bullet proofed. They are wrong. They
believe that cracking them is witchcraft. They are wrong. They believe hunting
the witches will cure the world. They are wrong.
The sad thing: Looks like Hotz can choose to swim and get burned to ashes or to
drown.
Please, your Honor. Stay sane.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 03:50 PM EST |
| Here's the difference between this jailbreak and DeCSS.
DVD players
never prohibited the playing of unencrypted content. DVD player
manufacturers go out of their way to support different physical formats
(DVD+/-R, etc.) and different content formats (MP3, AVI, WMV, etc.).
Users
can and always have been able to author their own DVDs (though before the
writable DVDs, that required specialized equipment, but didn't require onerous
NDAs or licensing or royalty payments).
CSS makes it difficult for an
amateur to copy or otherwise access an encrypted DVD in a fashion unauthorized
by the copyright holder. It is a restriction that makes fair use difficult, to
be sure, but it allows restrictions on licensees' actual copyrighted DVD
content. It does not allow those licensees to restrict my ability to play
non-encrypted DVDs which I create or which I buy or legitimately copy. So DVD
Jon's hack provided unauthorized access to DVDs, but not to the player,
because Joe Blow user could already access the capabilities of the
player for unlicensed/unprotected content!
Consider that the PS3 is
also a DVD player, and the situation becomes even more interesting. Sony
needs a checkbox in their marketing saying that the PS3 will play anybody's DVD
content. But their ability to do the equivalent of CSS on their own games
requires that, for computer programs as opposed to audio and
video, they disallow any content they didn't create or license.
What
Sony is attempting to do with the PS3 is, for computer programs, the equivalent
of only allowing playback of those sanctioned programs that have been legally
encrypted using its son-of-CSS DRM scheme. Since Sony doesn't allow the PS3 to
play non-encrypted programs, the only way to use a PS3 to play original computer
programming content is by breaking the encryption. This is a fundamentally
different reason than the reason that led to the creation of DeCSS, because
Sony's reason for caring is fundamentally different than the concerns that led
to the creation of CSS. Or rather I should say, that in addition to the
concerns that led to the creation of CSS, Sony has the more pressing concern
that the entire purpose of the PS3 is to be able to extract rents from game
manufacturers, and Hotz's break severely threatens this revenue
stream.
People who think it's just about punishing Hotz have it right and
wrong. Sony needs to send a message, so that any game manufacturer who even
thinks about creating a game for the PS3 and not paying Sony its toll will
realize that that is a losing legal proposition. Unfortunately, supporting this
bad business decision on Sony's part is extremely bad public policy and is no
reason for the judge to feel sorry for Sony.
A careful reading of the
judgment in Universal v. Reimerdes (especially the overbreadth section)
suggests that Judge Kaplan might well have decided differently if CSS prevented
people from publishing their own DVDs without paying a toll to the DVD
consortium.
Judge Kaplan recognized that there were hypothetical fair use
arguments for DeCSS, but decided that Congress struck a careful fair use balance
that DeCSS couldn't overcome. However, if he were presented with a
hardware manufacturer, like Sony, attempting to disallow legal
third-party software from running on its equipment via a copyright law, he
probably would have decided correctly, just like the judges in Lexmark
and Chamberlain.
So far, whether because of inattentiveness,
prejudice, or inability to comprehend plain facts, Judge Illston is currently on
the wrong side of precedent and, hopefully, the wrong side of history. Let's
hope she figures it out and corrects herself before she does too much more
damage.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2011 @ 12:44 AM EST |
http://geohot.com/#2/19/2011
(Though I would rather donate by way of EFF if I could be sure the money would
go to his defense effort.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
