|
|
| Sony Opposes Hotz's Motion to Dismiss - Updated 4Xs |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:38 PM EDT
|
Sony has now filed its opposition to George Hotz's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue in SCEA v. Hotz. So we find out what Sony was able to find out from the discovery they fought so hard for. And the answer is: I see no clear smoking gun. Not that Sony doesn't yell bang, bang, bang throughout its response. But I'm not yet convinced that Sony has demonstrated jurisdiction in California. And that is the basis for Hotz's motion. Maybe they should consider the possibility Hotz was telling the truth. A few exhibits are under seal, so we are limited in being able to determine whether there might be more, and I do see some things that are new that Hotz will have to respond to, and he will, and I haven't yet read everything with a fine tooth comb, but the overview feeling to me on first reading is that Sony did a lot of poking through people's things and came up with some hints and some assertions based on possibilities or even likelihoods but no solid proof. That doesn't mean they won't prevail. It's not hard to beat a motion to dismiss. Personally, I think Sony should just sue the guy in New Jersey. They can afford to go anywhere, and he's just a solitary kid with no vast, equivalent resources to defend himself against this international corporation's mighty hand. It just feels unfair, even if everything Sony alleges were true. And I have my doubts it is. But I'll show you the main arguments, and with the documents themselves, you can draw your own conclusions.
Here are all the filings, some under seal so there's no PDF:
03/18/2011 - 103 -
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION to (re 57 MOTION to Dismiss FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE ) filed by Sony Computer Entertainment
America LLC. (Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 3/18/2011) Modified on 3/21/2011
(ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/18/2011)
03/18/2011 - 104 -
DECLARATION of Ryan Bricker in Support of 103 Opposition/Response to
Motion filed by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit A to
Bricker Decl., # 2 Exhibit B to
Bricker Decl, # 3 Exhibit C to
Bricker Decl, # 4 Exhibit D to
Bricker Decl, # 5 Exhibit E to
Bricker Decl, # 6 Exhibit F to
Bricker Decl, # 7 Exhibit G to
Bricker Decl, # 8 - Exhibit H to
Bricker Decl, # 9 Exhibit I to
Bricker Decl, # 10 Exhibit J to
Bricker Decl, # 11 Exhibit K to
Bricker Decl, # 12 Exhibit L to Bricker Decl, # 13 Exhibit M to
Bricker Decl, # 14 Exhibit N to Bricker Decl, # 15 Exhibit O to
Bricker Decl, # 16 Exhibit P to Bricker Decl, # 17 Exhibit Q to
Bricker Decl, # 18 Exhibit R to
Bricker Decl, # 19 Exhibit S to
Bricker Decl, # 20 Exhibit T to Bricker Decl, # 21 Exhibit U to
Bricker Decl)(Related document(s) 103 ) (Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on
3/18/2011) Modified on 3/21/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2011)
03/19/2011 - 105 -
DECLARATION in Support of 103 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Liu
Declaration, # 2 Affidavit
Pierce, # 3 Proposed
Order)(Related document(s) 103 ) (Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on
3/19/2011) Modified on 3/21/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2011)
03/19/2011 - 106 -
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Sony Computer
Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit
Gaudreau Declaration ISO Admin Motion, # 2 Proposed
Order, # 3 Certificate of
Service)(Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 3/19/2011) (Entered: 03/19/2011)
03/19/2011 - 107 -
DECLARATION of Marvin Miller in Support of 103 Opposition/Response to
Motion filed by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit B to
Miller Declaration, # 2 Exhibit C to
Miller Declaration)(Related document(s) 103 ) (Smith, Mehrnaz)
(Filed on 3/19/2011) Modified on 3/21/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered:
03/19/2011)
03/19/2011 - 108 - Exhibit A
to 107 Miller Declaration filed by Sony Computer Entertainment America
LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A pt.
2, # 2 Exhibit A pt.
3, # 3 Exhibit A pt.
4)(Related document(s) 107 ) (Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 3/19/2011)
Modified on 3/21/2011 (ys, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2011)
Note that I decided not to post the exhibit that shows a map of directions to Hotz's home.
Here's their best argument: Sony claims he did sign up for a PlayStation Network account in March of last year with a PlayStation he purchased, hence bringing him under the terms of use, including the California forum clause. But the account opened is not in his name or in any nym he's known to use. It's a nym, blickmanic, and while Sony presents it as surely Hotz, I am not convinced yet. [ Update 3: The response says blickmanic, but the forum conversation that Sony attaches as Exhibit F says blickmaniac.] And Sony found thousands of California people downloaded his "circumvention device", as Sony insists on calling his work, but is that enough to get you sued there, in that Hotz didn't know they were in California or solicit California in particular? It's not like he personally emailed them, after all. Sony thinks so:
In March, 2010, Hotz signed up for a PlayStation® Network (“PSN”) Account using a new PlayStation® 3 computer entertainment system (“PS3 System”) that he purchased. Moreover, Hotz has plainly directed his unlawful conduct at Plaintiff Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“SCEA”) here in the Northern District of California and has caused harm to SCEA, a resident of this district. Hotz circumvented the technological protection measures (“TPMs”) in the PS3 System and through his website, Hotz distributed circumvention devices to thousands of California residents. Discovery from the third party webhost for Hotz’s website shows that approximately 5,700 unique IP addresses in California downloaded the circumvention devices from Hotz’s website before the commencement of this lawsuit.
What Sony does not address is that there was apparently no money involved. I mean, Sony got the right to poke through his Paypal account. Where's the proof anyone paid him a dime? He wasn't selling anything, I gather, or even accepting donations, which is what Sony started out alleging, and so there was no way Hotz would know if people in California or New Jersey or Belarus downloaded. So I am not yet convinced that this proves intent to accept California as the right forum for litigation, but the judge may. Here's Sony's argument, so you can form your own impression:
In his latest exploit, Hotz, a well-known hacker who has gained notoriety for circumventing the technological protection measures in a number of sophisticated software and hardware systems, purposefully directed his activities at SCEA in California. He committed an intentional act expressly aimed at California, causing harm in California that Hotz knew was likely to be suffered in California.
Doesn't that feel a little thin? It does to me. It was just as likely in New Jersey or Belarus or anywhere. Can he be sued literally *everywhere*? Did he intend to have people download from everywhere, making any jurisdiction on planet Earth appropriate? Nice way to kill off the Internet, if so. Who'd want to have a website if the law worked like that? Dear Sony, please think about this. You are a huge corporation. The Internet has value beyond just you. Consider your steps carefully, please. And think beyond just this one case. The thing is, it's not like Hotz was selling products, where you know where you are sending products or are accepting credit cards with home addresses. If he had, I'd find Sony's argument much more persuasive. Then you'd definitely see targeting the state and intending to. But a passive website, where you put up something and who knows what happens next -- that isn't the same kind of targeting. It's a little scary to think that you can be sued in any of the 50 states, and for that matter the entire world, just because you have something on your website. Would even Sony want it to work like that? Here is their evidence that he has a PlayStation Network account: Hotz identified four PS3 Systems in his possession. Bricker Decl., ¶4, Exh. C. He explained that he had purchased one of these consoles new in February 2010 and provided the serial number for that console. Id. SCEA used that serial number to determine that on February 25, 2010, Hotz purchased the PS3 System at a Gamestop store just miles from his home. Law Decl., ¶6; Bricker Decl., ¶6, Exh. E. SCEA’s records show that the same PS3 System was used on March 10, 2010 to create a PSN account under the user name “blickmanic.” Law Decl., ¶6, Exh. A. The IP address associated
with the registration is located in Glen Rock, New Jersey, where Hotz lives. Law Decl.
¶6. Hotz’s ownership of the “blickmanic” account is further supported by the fact that an Internet search of the user name “blickmanic” reveals a posting discussing the jailbreaking of cellular phones – Hotz’s original “claim to fame.” Bricker Decl., ¶7, Exh. F (“Just curious what people would pay for exclusive rights to this solution. [Motorola]
Tracfone W175g unlocked and debranded. PM me.”) As discussed above, to create his PSN account, Hotz was required to first agree to the terms of the PSN User Agreement and thus he is clearly subject to personal jurisdiction in California.
Except none of this establishes, to me, anyway, that any of this was done by Hotz, except presumably for the purchase, and even that was apparently in cash. Hotz acknowledges owning this one. But I see no proof that he is blickmanic (or blickmaniac). The man has friends, presumably, and surely relatives. Who knows who signed up for sure? It could be it was Hotz, but if so, he's a mighty big fibber, in that he said that to the best of his knowledge, he never had such an account, and it'd be hard to forget something this recent and this important. But what if he bought it and someone else signed up as blickmanic, or blickmaniac, without his awareness, and Sony just imagines that it's Hotz, because they need it to be him to stay in California? If you are out there, blickmanic (or blickmaniac), do step forward, by all means. No doubt Hotz will have to respond to this assertion. Sony takes another rather large leap in trying to establish jurisdiction: The “purposeful availment” requirement is satisfied when an intentional act is both aimed at and has an effect in the forum state and causes harm, “the brunt of which is suffered – and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered – in the forum state.” Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 783-784 (1984)). Under this well-established “effects test,” personal jurisdiction over Hotz is proper.
Except the brunt of the harm, if Hotz is correct that it's Sony Japan who should be suing him and not SCEA, wouldn't be in California or even in the US. If Hotz ever thought about what he was doing as causing harm, he'd likely have thought of Sony Japan. I know I would.
Here's how Sony tries to deal with that claim, strengthening the evidence of Hotz's knowledge that SCEA was in California with warranty language: Likewise, here, the specific model of PS3 System that Hotz purchased came packaged together with various PS3 System materials including an Instruction Manual replete with references to SCEA in California. Miller Decl., ¶3, Exh. A. For example, the Instruction Manual directs users to contact SCEA for their support needs and contains a warranty agreement between SCEA and its customers. Id., Exh. A at pp. 3, 4, 7-8, 10, 24 33, 40, 53-54. The warranty agreement continually refers to SCEA. For example:
Sony Computer Entertainment America (“SCEA”) warrants to the original purchaser that the PS3TM hardware shall be free from material defects in material and workmanship for a period of one (1) year from the original date of purchase (the “Warranty Period”)
The warranty offered by Sony Computer Entertainment America on your PS3TM hardware is the same whether or not you registered your product. Miller Decl., Ex. A, p. 53. Additionally, the Instruction Manual repeatedly directs customers to SCEA’s website, which itself prominently describes SCEA’s headquarters in Foster City, California. Bricker Decl., ¶20, Exh. R. Also included in the PS3 System packaging that Hotz received was a standalone Notice of SCEA’s Return Policy. Id. at ¶2, Exh. C. And the packaging itself provided Hotz with additional notice that his circumvention would harm SCEA in California. Id. at ¶4.
Hotz’s knowledge of SCEA was not limited to his purchase of PS3 Systems. Hotz had notice of both SCEA and the PSN User Agreement through his own blog in April 2010. Bricker Decl., ¶18, Exh. P. In response to Hotz’s blog post regarding his earlier attempts to hack the PS3 System, commenters posted the PSN User Agreements on at least five occasions. Id.
Indeed, Hotz was well aware of the harmful impact of his unlawful conduct on SCEA. Bricker Decl., ¶9, Exh. H; ¶17, Exh. O. Contrary to his after-the fact denials, Hotz deliberately aimed his conduct at SCEA in this District when he published the “Metldr Keys” on his website and – on the same day – wrote to SCEA: “if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. Any of you.” Bricker Decl., ¶9, Exh. H.
Hotz now summarily denies that he sought employment from SCEA and his counsel argues that his conduct was targeted to SCEI in Japan. (Docket No. 44, ¶15.) How Hotz retroactively characterizes his conduct does not matter. Hotz had ample notice that his actions were targeted at SCEA, not just SCEI. Further, Hotz had actual knowledge that his actions were targeting SCEA in California. Hotz – who is
unquestionably familiar with the video game and computing industries in California from his prior hacking activities, his prior employment at Google in California, and his prior residence in California – deliberately induced thousands of individuals in California to download his circumvention devices.
On this factual record, there can be no question that Hotz’s actions were “expressly aimed” at SCEA in California.
Except, of course, that it does matter what Hotz meant by what he wrote. And I still have questions about whether he was aiming at California, if he was aiming at all. None of the above proves to me that he knew he could be sued in California. SCEA may have been the contact for support, but that doesn't mean he thought that SCEA was the owner or supplier of the PS3. This is a world of outsourcing. I mean, Dell used to use folks in India for support. I know because I used to chat with them for hours when office equipment broke down years ago. But I never thought that any litigation between me and Dell might be proper in India. Ditto here. Support isn't the same as ownership. It just isn't. And while the warranty is a better argument, given the support being SCEA's, Hotz might have assumed it was tied to the warranty, because they did the support, while the owner was still Sony Japan.
[ Update 2: Groklaw's celtic hacker noted something else about the warranty language, namely that it says it doesn't cover the software, only the hardware: This warranty does not apply to any system software that is pre-installed in the PS3™ hardware, or Is subsequently provided via update or upgrade releases. Such system software is licensed to you under the terms and conditions of a separate end user license agreement at http://www.scei.co.jp//ps3-eula and such software is provided pursuant to its own warranty. As you can see, Hotz would clearly realize, if he had read the warranty, that the software, including the firmware, which is what he was studying, came from Sony Japan, not from SCEA. That would strengthen Hotz's argument that SCEA is not the right party to sue him. Firmware is software, not hardware. Note in Exhibit A attached to the Bricker Declaration that the parties agreed to revise the language defining circumvention device, and I'll highlight in red the relevant pieces:The parties agreed to the following modified definition of "Circumvention Devices" to be included in the Preliminary Injunction and the discovery requests propounded by SCEA:
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 Cure 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 copyrghted works with the PS3 System. What Hotz was mainly doing was working with firmware, as in "3.55 Firmware Jailbreak", I gather, and so this would bring Sony Japan into the warranty picture, not SCEA. Firmware is software code permanently in read-only memory, not hardware. However, Exhibit I, an article in The Register, quotes Hotz as saying, "Basically, I used hardware to open a small hole and then used software to make the hole the size of the system to get full read/write access." So, if he was quoted correctly, that would include hardware to that degree. Note the BBC article attached as Exhibit O quotes Hotz as saying he is opposed to piracy, as well as others:The group, which has previously hacked Nintendo's Wii and says it is vehemently against
games piracy, said that it had developed the hack so that it could install other operating systems and community-written software - known as homebrew - on the powerful machine.
"The details we provided and information and techniques we disclosed would have been enough to install Linux," he said. "We have no interest in piracy."...
"I hate that it enables piracy," said Mr Hotz. "The publication of the key is more academic than anything else."... Following his initial announcement, Sony released an update disabling a function, called OtherOS, that allowed gamers to install a version of Linux on their machines, thought to have been exploited by Mr Hotz.
Many saw it as a pre-emptive strike to guard against games piracy. Mr Hotz never released the exploit and publicly said that he had stopped work on the console.
But Sony's removal of OtherOS prompted other hackers to begin to look at the system more closely. That is consistent with what Hotz has told the court, that he's opposed to piracy. And that gives context to his offer to help Sony improve their security. One complication for Hotz, though, is that while one can argue that the hardware belongs to the buyer, there is no such argument with software, which is licensed, not sold. End update.]And since Hotz would never be using support, why would he even read any of that stuff? Even if he did, none of it says to me that SCEA was the owner or distributor, just the support entity. As for comments on his website, I can assure you, as editor of this website, I don't have time to read all the comments. If I tried, I'd have to stop writing Groklaw articles. You can't assume people have read something just because it exists somewhere on the Internet or even on one's own website. The issue is what Hotz knew and what he intended. The argument that the gaming industry is in California so he must have known he'd be affecting California is very odd indeed, coming from a company headquartered in Japan. And as for SCEA twisting Hotz's offer to help Sony fix its security to make it sound like a job request, the whole gaming world knows for sure that no programmer on Hotz's level wants to work for Sony. Take that to the bank. Hotz was just being nice. That's how I read it even before he explained it. Sony looks at Hotz with mean eyes, I suspect. Or they'd like the judge to do so.
Keep in mind that Hotz gets to respond, so my advice is wait and get the whole picture before you decide who is telling the truth. In my experience, in most litigation, it's a little bit on both sides. And a little bit not. But this doesn't convince me at all yet. I am left wondering, is this all they've got? After all that frantic discovery, pawing through everybody's stuff? An account in a nym not known to be Hotz? It's so ephemeral. But the law tilts all Sony's way, other than the US Constitution, so what would convince a judge to let this go forward in California and what it would take to convince me that Sony isn't taking advantage of the law in a way one may not much admire -- well, it's two different things. Watching this huge and wealthy corporation trying to force this kid to suffer their full weight and power in litigation in California, when he lives across the country and has no equivalent money to absorb such a blow is disturbing. Like I said, no one admires a bully.
Update: I was noticing something I think might be significant about the terms of use for the PlayStation Network in effect when Hotz allegedly joined. There is no "I agree". Maybe if you go to actually play you are faced with one, but Hotz says he never did play, so that raises the question in my mind: did he ever agree to the terms? Here is the page of Sony's various agreements, so you can check.
Update 4: In the Kenneth Law Declaration [PDF], he provides this answer: 3. A PSN account can be created by using the PS3 System or a personal computer. ln either case, a user creating a PSN account must provide the following information: a valid email address, date of birth, a unique username and password, the user's first and last name, a physical address, and the country in which the user lives. During the account creation process, whether the account is created using a personal computer or a PS3 console, the user is presented with the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement ('PSN User Agreement") and required to either "accept" or udeny" the PSN User Agreement by clicking a corresponding button. The PSN User Agreement specifies that the
user has entered a binding agreement with SCEA if he or she chooses to accept it. The PSN User Agreement requires that users "submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California." During the PSN account registration process using a personal computer, there is an email address authentication step in which the user must open an email sent from the PSN to the email address given by the user and then click on a link in order to complete the process. Did blickmaniac provide all the above? If so, it would seem we would not have to guess whether he is really George Hotz or not. Unfortunately, those details are in a sealed exhibit.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
If any.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Filing 104 ... - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- blickmanic --> blickmaniac - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Update: I was noticing something .. - Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- .../SonyvHotz-104-8.pdf ?? - Authored by: softbear on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Update 4: Several OCR errors - Authored by: FrankH on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- udeny" --> "deny" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:27 AM EDT
- Elliptic Cure Digital -> Elliptic Curve Digital - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- elick -> click - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- I'm only counting 3 updates? - n/y - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:47 PM EDT
- ..in update 4: udeny" --> "deny" - Authored by: arnt on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 06:45 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
Please make any links clickable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Firefox 4 is now available - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- Sprint Plans Appeal to Congress to Halt AT&T T-Mobile Deal - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- David Boies - Authored by: Cypher3c on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Market Summary for NOVL 03-22-11 - Authored by: dacii on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- SCEA offers job, gets turned down due to Hotz lawsuit - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Federal Judge Rejects Google Book Deal - Authored by: sgtrock on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- replacement for sharepoint - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:37 PM EDT
- Novell's appeal - two weeks gone? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- Righthaven and fair use- Interesting ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:28 AM EDT
- Web site terms of use - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- Florida Sharia Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Infographic: 37 Android-related patent lawsuits (since 2010) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- Do disappearing Microsoft executive bios equal demotions? - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- Possible country(read China) compromising a CA to issue SSL certs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- florian's fud is at it again - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Market Summary for NOVL 03-23-11 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- $75 Trillion in Damages 'Absurd' in Lime Wire Copyright Case - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Apple replaces Samba for Windows networking services - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Large NY newspaper wastes $40M on leaky paywall - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- The Power of Nice People - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- blank page - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- Novell's appeal to approval of sale - Authored by: calris74 on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 01:20 AM EDT
- What happened? - Authored by: s65_sean on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 12:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Please note the article in the subject line
and include a link for future readers.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
Isn't juridistiction for webpages determined by broadcast laws? And isn't the
conclusion that they belon in the juridistiction where the server is located?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Just more FUD to discourage independent programmers.
You know, there *is* a clear connection between
Hotz and California. It should be immaterial to
jurisdiction, but there is a connection.
In fact, it appears that SONY has purposely avoided
that rock, and wants to fish around from other angles.
But, I believe they may have awoken a large fish
that will upset the SONY boat anyway.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
This all reminds me of the old days of the Internet, and
recently as well, when people would go forum shopping in
order to sue porn sites. The definition of obscenity is
vague, and declares that it is defined by "community
standards". So plaintiffs would go looking for the most
restrictive, conservative community they could find, usually
someplace like Tennessee, and file their suit there. It's
no different than patent trolls bringing up their cases in
plaintiff-friendly areas like the Eastern District of Texas.
The only difference here is that, other than proximity to
Sony, I haven't really seen anything that makes California
so compelling here. California's laws may be more favorable
to Sony, but the interstate nature of the allegations would
seem to make this a federal case, so I'm not sure how local
laws would carry as much weight here.
Somebody care to shed some light on this for this non-lawyer
techie?
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
LOL I don't know how many pieces of equipment I have bought that when I opened I
took the manuals (still in the plastic bag) into the filing cabinet.. I don't
read the manual unless I have too... And the only reason I would open the bag is
if there was something I needed from it..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
From: Michael Grennier [redacted email address]
Sent: Thursday,
March 17, 2011 7:56 AM
To: Stewart Kellar; Gaudreau, Holly
Cc: Robert
Kleeger; Yasha Heidari; Boroumand Smith, Mehrnaz; Bricker, Ryan; Jack C.
Praetzellis;
[redacted email address][redacted email
address]
Subject: Imaging of encrypted drives. CRM:0003005
All,
We took the drives out of our evidence locker and the
evidence bag to image them in their current encrypted state
as stated in
the order and agreed to on our phone call yesterday. We have
determined that the controller cards
which are screwed onto the hard drives
were removed prior to them being given to us. Therefore we are
unable
to operate the hard drives in their current state. Keep in mind
that we need two days to image these drives as we
have to image two 1TB
drives.
I would recommend that Mr. Hotz forward to us immediately both
the hard drive controller cards, screws and
anything else he may have
including the complete computer system (minus the monitor, keyboard and mouse)
so
that we can be prepared to complete the forensic imaging process (both
encrypted and un-encrypted).
The drives have been returned to the evidence
bag and locker at this time.
Regards,
Mike
Michael
Grennier, CFCE, EnCE
TheIntelligenceGroup
I
find it hard to believe that Grennier accepted the hard drives into evidence
without noticing the missing "controller cards" at that time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- imaging - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- imaging - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 02:24 AM EDT
- imaging - Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- imaging - Authored by: greed on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Forensic imaging - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM EDT
- Missing controller on hard drive - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:04 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Kensey on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- The drives would have been in anti-static containers - Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- The controller boards are missing - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: ionic on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:26 AM EDT
- two things - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:35 AM EDT
- two things - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:52 PM EDT
- Oh come on, Sony doesn't have a controller card? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:34 PM EDT
- Interesting email in Exhibit S - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 01:07 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
"SCEA’s records show that the same PS3 System was used on March 10, 2010 to
create a PSN account under the user name “blickmanic.” ... The IP address
associated with the registration is located in Glen Rock, New Jersey, where Hotz
lives."
It sounds pretty concrete to me that he probably created that account. What are
the odds that the PS3's serial number was somehow used to create a PSN account
by someone else in the same town he lives?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The PSN account - Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- “blickmanic” - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Electronic Serial numbers aren't. - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- The PSN account ... I disagree > - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Information NOT in Exhibits? - Authored by: softbear on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: jwvess00 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:41 PM EDT
- The PSN account - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:02 AM EDT
- and another thing - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 03:05 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
| For a corporation registered as a business (both INC, LLC) in New Jersey, they
sure are trying very hard to NOT sue somebody in their own state of
registration. They may have their main mailing address in CA, but then why are
they registered in NJ? Go
figure.
https://accessnet.state.nj.us/BusinessEntityResults.asp
search
for SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC. and you will get two
hits.
1 SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA INC. 0100708261
FR
2 SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC 0600359614 FLC
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem;
As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
| The motion refers to "blickmanic" in several places, but the actual username in
the postings that the motion
refers to is "blickmaniac". Is
this deliberate? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
Question: once a person registers a PSN account, how does
one go about getting it unregistered? or are you stuck with
it the rest of your life? Is that registered PSN account
associated with a specific person? corporation? your family
and all family members for ever and ever until the end of
time? What if a person declares bankruptcy? or dies? while
accessing the account or not accessing the account? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
which PSN user agreement was in affect at the time this
account was created? where is the text to that agreement? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
If PJ doesn't read all comments I have to say I am extremely flattered by the
number of my anonymous comments she has taken the time respond to. I'm so
grateful for all I have learned here.
Thanks PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
| I would say SCEA's forensic team did a fairly shallow investigation. The photo posted
by Blinkmaniac was taken by an iPhone and contains GPS metadata
which shows
that the photo was taken in Boston.
I'd say this is more reliable evidence
of someone's location than the IP address.
If the post itself was made on an
iPhone, good luck correlating the IP to anything
meaningful. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cypher3c on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Wow, look at how slanted the language is here (I'll
highlight):
In his latest exploit, Hotz, a well-known
hacker who has gained notoriety for circumventing the technological
protection measures in a number of sophisticated software and hardware systems,
purposefully directed his activities at SCEA in California. He committed
an intentional act expressly aimed at California, causing harm in
California that Hotz knew was likely to be suffered in
California.
Yeah, I know the lawyers have to be biased, but,
wow. This is twisted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Now I get it - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:30 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
Curious how SCEA points out all the warranty and support references to SCEA but
never mentions this note in the Instruction Manual on Page 4 (Page 5 in filing
#108).
System software
The system software
included within this product is subject to a limited license
from
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Refer to http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula for
further details.
So the license to use the system
software is clearly from SCEI in Japan!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
When you sign up for PSN though the PS3, or the website, you will have the
option to agree, or disagree to the TOS. What you appear to be linking to is
just the general agreement, not the actual setup.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
Sony swore up and down that this was the account of George Hotz.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
As per just about everything else in this case - it seems Sony ought to lose on
this one.. so, based on the ridiculous decisions thus far, my money is on Hotz's
motion being denied.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
If it's not him, that seems a rational thing to do. Let the collective wisdom
of the internet help to figure out if Sony is pulling a fast one, or who the
actual user behind the nym was.
If Sony fights hard to file that info under seal, that would be very telling,
indicating that they are not at all sure how reliable the information is...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- privacy concerns - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 10:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: pem on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
I haven't viewed any of them yet, but lots of people have posted videos on how
to do this.
For example, just google for:
sign up for psn site:youtube.com
DMCA takedown notices from Sony in 3.. 2.. 1..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 02:53 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
Sony seems to make a big fuss using a very strange
definition of
"interactive".
Apparently, "merely passive" web sites are much better
shielded against such jurisdiction claims than "highly
interactive" websites.
In the opposition, Sony seems to
claim that Hotz's site is "highly interactive"
just because
it has a very large number of users. But it seems to me that
interactivity has nothing at all to do with the number of
users; there can be
a highly interactive website with only a
single user (for example, my local
backup system), and
conversely there can be entirely passive web pages with
hundreds of thousands of users. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:05 PM EDT |
What does this have to do with knowing that the EULA ties his activities to
California?
Here is why I ask:
1. Was this a "slim" PS3 that never had the ability to run Linux, or
was it one of the older "fat" PS3 models? If it was a "slim"
then what does it have to do with the case, anyway?
2. Can Sony prove that this particular PS3 was the one upon which Hotz did the
hacking?
3. Can Sony prove that this particular PS3 contained the same version of the
EULA as the one on which he did his work? I mean, the EULA which they say ties
him somehow to California?
Unless questions like this are answered, then here is a rather uncomfortable
analogy:
One might be looking at "proof" that someone has done a hit and run
with a Yamaha motorcycle, and what ties the individual to the Yamaha motorcycle
is some incontrovertible evidence that he owns a Yamaha piano!
Apologies to Yamaha. I only use their name to illustrate that a company might
sell more than one kind of product, as does Sony, not because I think that
Yamaha has anything to do with this case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: YetAnotherSteve on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
What Sony does not address is that there was apparently no money
involved. I mean, Sony got the right to poke through his Paypal
account.
Docket 103 Footnote 16 says that Paypal hasn't
responded yet; all they've got so far from the subpoenas is Bluehost's response,
and SoftLayer's motion to quash. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
| This seems to be part of the truckloads of balderdash SCEA is dumping on this
case hoping that something useful will grow out of it.
What does the PSN
have to do with jailbreaking the PS3? Who cares who owns, controls, or operates
the PSN? IIRC, it was Apple who got involved in the iPhone jailbreaks, not the
telecom carrier the iPhone connects to. The Librarian of Congress exemption
specifically allows jailbreaking phones to switch carriers. ISTM, it is the
carrier who is hurt most by this, not the manufacturer, but it is hard to see
how the carrier would have standing (assuming no exemption).
Although
linking this case to the PSN does serve to muddy the waters because it can give
the appearance that geohot was breaking into or interfering with the PSN and not
his very own PS3. This is not a minor distinction. The massive outpouring of
sympathy for geohot and outrage at Sony is almost entirely because of this
distinction.
The PS3 can also be used to connect to NetFlix. Does this
mean NetFlix has standing to sue geohot over jailbreaking the
PS3?
---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Why is SCEA allowed to state that Hotz distributed circumvention devices, rather
than alleged circumvention devices?
There has been no trial yet on whether or not what Hotz published enabled
circumvention of an effective protection measure on any copyrighted work, nor
have they stated which work's protection was circumvented.
The PS3 is not a copyrighted work, is it?
How does SCEA meet the Twombly/Iqbal standards of proof?
One thing is clear from Sony's text: they are anything but reasonable and I will
not buy anything Sony lest I be hauled into whatever court is most inconvenient
for me (coming to California would require a visum for me.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 22 2011 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
As does information and likelihood of certain actions.
Action in question:
Hotz registered with PSN on the 10 March? Wasn't he being sued by Sony then?
Judge, do your believe "Having had this box for quite a while, I'm going to
register my device, even while being sued by the manufacture." Is this
'Reasonable Person' action? Really?
Some Dates and possible action questions for Hotz to Sony.
Did Sony or some other entity have Hotz's PS3 serial number before March 10?
Does the registration process pull the number from PS3 hardware, or is it input
via a keyboard or some other user action?
Is the serial number inside the hardware, or just a stamp on the equipment?
If inside the hardware, can Sony or some other entity burn a new serial number
chip at will and install that modified serial number chip in a new PS3?
What company or entity would have that capability? How hard is that process?
What equipment would be needed?
Last question. Did Sony subpoena IP addresses from Hotz's ISP? If no, why not?
Sony standing appears, at least from their point of view, to depend on whither
Hotz registered his PS3. Can this be proven with some level of certainty?
These questions, suggestions of possible misrepresentations and failure to
extract closer location data should be addressed in Hotz reply.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:03 AM EDT |
Discovery from the third party webhost for Hotz’s website shows that
approximately 5,700 unique IP addresses in California downloaded the
circumvention devices from Hotz’s website before the commencement of this
lawsuit.
Oh boy. Sony wants to claim that those IP addresses all
belong to people in California. Well prove it Sony.
I bet they can't even
prove how many individuals those IP addresses map to.
Even worse for Sony,
Geo-location of IP Addresses is guesswork at best. So are all the unique
people those IP addresses map to resident in
California. ---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information
for in his heart he considers himself your master. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:33 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
I like to see a judgment that states: firmware is software.
I have some doubts, as firmware is bound to a specific hardware (even revision)
and a purpose. Furthermore it substitutes a mechanical / electronic path that
leads from a given state to a result. A programer has little to none creative
choices to do a firmware. As opposed to an app where you can choose a frontend,
methodes, data structures, ...
And there is another error, I think. It is not Sony Nippon chasing Hotz for
hacking the firmware.
It is SCEA chasing for Hotz. Because he is offering a way to circumvent the
usability-protection (copy protection is wrong in a technical point of view) of
their games. They don't have to discuss, if it is legal to hack a firmware.
Pointless. It is enough for SCEA that anyone can copy one of their games using
Hotz knowledge.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sony Opposes Hotz's Motion to Dismiss - Updated 3Xs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:26 AM EDT
- Sony Opposes Hotz's Motion to Dismiss - Updated 3Xs - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:05 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- Disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- Disagree - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 09:36 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Irrelevant -SONY refers to the firmware as software - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:11 AM EDT
- Sony Opposes Hotz's Motion to Dismiss - Updated 3Xs - Authored by: sjohnson on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Sony Opposes Hotz's Motion to Dismiss - Updated 3Xs - Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 01:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
A PSN account can be created by using the PS3 System or a personal
computer. ln either case, a user creating a PSN account must provide the
following information: a valid email address, date of birth, a unique username
and password, the user's first and last name, a physical address, and the
country in which the user lives.
From the above quotation, we see
that the serial number is not requested in order to set up a PSN account. Sony
tell us (usual disclaimer about corporate legal verisimilitude) that a PSN
account may be created using a PS3 or a computer. If a computer is used, there
is no automatic way of getting the serial number of any PS3s owned by the person
registering.
How is a PS3 used for creating an account? Does it have,
perhaps, an Internet browser? We know that browsers identify the operating
system used by the client, so does the PS3 browser report 'PS3' and also give
the serial number, as well? I would think it most unlikely that Sony would
rewrite the browser such that it searched for the serial number in the firmware
and passed that to any site browsed to. If it does, that is a breach of the data
protection laws in the EU.
Hotz has four PS3s, so why would it matter
which one he used to set up a PSN account, anyway? Why would he use the one
bought in February, 2010 to set up an account when he had manfully resisted
setting up an account during the years he has owned the other three PS3s? Why
would he use that particular PS3 if he thought he was doing something that SCEA
might not like? Would he have used a recently purchased PS3 or would he have
known enough to browse using a computer via an anonymous proxy
site?
SCEA used that serial number to determine that on February
25, 2010, Hotz purchased the PS3 System at a Gamestop store just miles from his
home. SCEA’s records show that the same PS3 System was used on March 10, 2010 to
create a PSN account under the user name “blickmanic.” The IP address associated
with the registration is located in Glen Rock, New Jersey, where Hotz lives.
Hotz’s ownership of the “blickmanic” account is further supported by the fact
that an Internet search of the user name “blickmanic” reveals a posting
discussing the jailbreaking of cellular phones
So, how did they
use their records to 'show that the same PS3 System was used on
March 10, 2010 to create a PSN account under the user name “blickmanic.'? If
they had the serial number of the PS3 used to set up the account (which they say
they do not) why do they need to use the IP address to point to someone in Glen
Rock, New Jersey? Do they only have one PS3 user in Glen Rock, New Jersey? Is
that only user, George Hotz? Are there no other games players in Glen Rock, New
Jersey?
If their records gave them a valid email address (which, as we
all know, is used in registration processes throughout the world and throughout
business to avoid bogus registrations) why can they not use this valid email
address to find out who registered for the PSN account?
Could this be
SCEA materially misrepresenting the facts, again or is this just an example of
being economical with the verisimilitude? Perhaps there are severe shortages of
there, there in Northern California. We know it never rains in California, it
pours. I think I know what is pouring down in SCEA's part of Northern
California.
---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Intentionally left Blank Rome upt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
Surely this was in jest. A map with driving directions between NJ and
California to support their theory that Hotz has a connection to California?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Map exhibit - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: delestoran on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Perhaps everyone would be better off if all products sold had a big, fat, un
mistakable warning label. Perhaps it could be similar to the ones found on
cigarettes:
"Warning! Purchasing this product could lead to you being sued in
<insert
jurisdiction here>"
I'm sure that would make those nasty hackers think twice before buying. That
would, however, solve the "you should have known we'd sue you in
California,
or Belarus or wherever" argument.
Seriously though, having a website leading to being sued in any jurisdiction is
exactly what Sony and other large corporations want. IT makes the start up
and the little guy so much easier to police without violating any laws. Don't
like what someone's review on their blog says? Sue them in Lichtenstein or
Belarus or California. Serve them at the last minute so you can get a default
judgement while they try to figure out where Belarus is located. Get a
government to seize their web address for some sort of crime, and wave that
default judgement around for all to see. Sure it's unfair, and sure it's mean,
but it will stifle free speech, which is the whole point. Make the internet too
expensive for just anyone to use and only the big, rich companies will be able
to use it. They'll all agree on what to put on the web, and who to allow to
access it, and soon everything will be back to "normal." That would
delight
the MPAA, RIAA, Sony, and pretty much every other large company with dirty
secrets to hide and monopolies to protect. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cassini2006 on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM EDT |
During the account creation process, whether the account is created
using a personal computer or a PS3 console, the user is presented with the
PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement ('PSN User Agreement")
and required to either "accept" or deny" the PSN User Agreement by clicking a
corresponding button. The PSN User Agreement specifies that the user has entered
a binding agreement with SCEA if he or she chooses to accept it.
Email only PSN accounts do not display the Terms of
Service.
You do not even get the chance to agree or disagree.
Does anyone
know if Sony presented a record that the TOS was agreed to? Do they even
record that information? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Maybe, it was a gift. Hotz may have listed the SN for completeness and
specified it was given as a gift. SCEA may just be leaving the gift part out.
It even neatly explains the 12 to 13 day delay, waiting for the day to give the
gift. Once the unit is out of Hotz's possession then it is not Hotz
registering.
A gift would also satisfy all the evidence, it was given to someone that does
not live far away, in the same town. Since it might be a friend or family
member, the forum posts could easily make since, someone wanting to say I helped
to do this.
If this is the case, we will see a statement from Hotz and an affidavit from the
gift's recipient. Also there will be a legal argument about the SCEA leaving
the gift part out.
Of course, I can't imagine SCEA using that if they knew in advance it was a
gift, seems Bad Faith to me. Maybe it will come out that Hotz included it for
completeness and failed to mention it being a gift, either way it is a defense.
Of course, last but not least, Hotz could have left the gift part off assuming
the recipient did the one thing he asked and not register. Since Hotz didn't
know it was registered, saying it was a gift didn't seem relevant at the time.
He was trying to prevent SCEA dragging an additional dolphin in the tuna nets
they deployed. He could even went as far as asked for the unit from the
recipient to satisfy the court order and is ready to turn it over or turned it
over, not knowing the recipient registered it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mike D on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Somehow, nobody is talking about this. It's not to inconvenience Hotz.
The Ninth Circuit (aka California) has explicitly rejected Chamberlain and the
general idea of requiring a nexus of infringement and circumvention when
determining DMCA liability. If the case is there, then Hotz faces a much more
difficult road ahead trying to defend the DMCA claim.
Sony's whole game here is, of course, to put more teeth behind that
anti-circumvention to chill further analysis of their platforms. California is
the perfect place. Hotz might have a rather interesting 1201f argument, since
he's going for interop, but it's still a tough call.
On the other hand, my unfrozen caveman lawyer research shows that the Third
Circuit (aka NJ) has no formal position on Chamberlain. So they might take it
or they might not. But his odds are a lot better there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Should really be OT, but there's no harm wishing that the earthquake related
cutbacks could
causethe mothership to ask its Californian subsidiary to go
easy on the legal expenditure.
Problems securing components are due to both
auto-shutdown machines needing restarting,
and damage to the road and
rail
systems.
bloomberg.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
| to add to the confusion of the judiciary. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
| Cnet says that Sony says that "PS3
hacker GeoHot fled to South America" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
|
Link
But Hotz’s lawyer said Wednesday that Sony is "crying
alligator tears" over the issue.
...
Stewart Kellar, Hotz’s attorney, said
the issue is overblown.
"They didn’t have the controller card attached.
That’s it," Kellar said in a telephone interview Wednesday from his San
Francisco office.
He said that Hotz has since turned over the cards, solving
the problem.
Sony did not respond for
comment.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 23 2011 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
There is a site
href="http://psx-scene.com/forums/f6/geohot-flees-
south-
america-83925/">here
a> where they discuss where Sony's data on
blickmaniac
came from. Apparently
the geotag in the picture blickmaniac uploaded is from
Cambridge Mass.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 12:07 AM EDT |
It appears Sony has, probably because of the lawsuit given the timing, changed
the terms of service, and is even creating a new division just for the Sony
online Network.
Nothing in the e-mail said it was confidential, and
they are linking to a website, so I'll reproduce the e-mail here for further
edification of those who don't have an
account.
---------------------------------------------
An
important message to you from the PlayStation(R)Network team at Sony Computer
Entertainment America LLC.
On April 1, 2011, Sony Computer
Entertainment America LLC ("SCEA") will transfer its online services operations,
including your wallet and the funds in it, to Sony Network
Entertainment
America Inc. ("SNEA").
The first time you sign in to your Sony Online
Services account on or after April 1, you will be asked to enter into a new
Terms of Service and User Agreement with SNEA.
If you do not wish to
enter into a contract with SNEA, you may decline the terms of service and we
will close your account(s) and return your funds. You can preview the new Terms
of Service and User Agreement with SNEA at:
This
Link.
PlayStation(R)Network will continue to provide you with the
highest standard of interactive entertainment. Your access to the best games,
movies, TV shows, music and friends will remain intact. Thank you very much for
being part of the PlayStation(R)Network online community! We look forward to
continuing to bring you the best in innovative online
entertainment!
---
MDT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
LXer: Dilbert, Office
Space, and Layoffs
Editor's Note: Picking Ourselves Up, Dusting
Ourselves Off---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 03:09 AM EDT |
Mega-corporation sues kid, and to make sure it can't lose, picks a
jurisdiction that is a far away as possible from where the victim
lives.
Right there, it stinks. Regardless of the merits of the case. No
legal system should allow this. In any halfway reasonable legal system, a
deep-pockets plaintiff should be sanctioned for even trying it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 03:36 AM EDT |
The Linux version is a tar package with no install script, no instructions
except a Readme directing me to the download page. The executables don't seem
to do anything. I'll wait till it comes out in a usable format, I've wasted
enough time on it for now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
> As you can see, Hotz would clearly realize, if
> he had read the warranty, that the software,
> including the firmware, which is what he was
> studying, came from Sony Japan, not from SCEA.
You can separate the attack on the firmware and the consequences. I don't think
that Sony Japan will accuse Hotz. There is no need for it.
Even so it was the firmware of Sony Japan that was hacked and breaks the chain
of trust. It isn't Sony Japan to find a damage, to file.
There is damage to SCEA. Because their games are being copied without
authorization and used without a proper license. That is all it needs.
It doesn't depend which IP was compromised. I think it is wrong to argue that
Hotz hacked property of Sony Japan. That is not relevant. The damage to SCEA is
relevant as they loose money on pirated games and consoles. Because their games
are affected. And they think Hotz is in charge for that. They still need a link
from Hotz to California, of course.
Hotz, the one who noticed the defective design of Sonys PS3. Not the one who has
done the defective design. But it looks like law is not with logic any more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 05:34 AM EDT |
| BBC So he is out
of the country. It may be a lot simpler for him if he stays out of the US. If
Sony come after him somewhere else, such as the EU, they may find that the US
business method of suing regardless of the facts (think SCO or RIAA) does not
work elsewhere, and can have severe repercussions in court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
Interesting change...
http://www.qriocity.com/psnlegal/us/tos.html
Does the SCEA even exist anymore then?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Would it matter if the PS3s he hacked (if any) are the 3 ones that weren't
registered ? Would he still be subject to the Terms and Conditions of the one he
registered (if he did it) ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 24 2011 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
This is an email I was sent from Sony verbatim:
"
Add PlayStation_Network@playstation.innovyx.net to your
address book
===================================
PlayStation(R)Network
===================================
An important message to you from the
PlayStation(R)Network team at Sony Computer Entertainment
America LLC.
On April 1, 2011, Sony Computer
Entertainment America LLC ("SCEA")
will transfer its online services
operations, including your wallet
and the funds in it, to Sony Network
Entertainment America Inc. ("SNEA").
The first time you sign in to your
Sony Online Services account on or
after April 1, you will be asked to
enter into a new Terms of Service and
User Agreement with SNEA. If you do
not wish to enter into a contract with
SNEA, you may decline the terms of
service and we will close your account(s) and return your
funds. You can preview the new Terms of Service and User
Agreement with SNEA at:
http://playstation.innovyx.net/r?xncJWvvEcWlJcqEHWvWWnWcvlnn
PlayStation(R)Network will continue to
provide you with the highest standard
of interactive entertainment. Your
access to the best games, movies, TV
shows, music and friends will remain
intact. Thank you very much for being
part of the PlayStation(R)Network online community! We look
forward to continuing to bring you the best in innovative
online entertainment!
Your PlayStation(R)Network password and Sign-on ID
(DestadoOne) is required to sign in to your Sony Online
Services account. Please go to >>
http://playstation.innovyx.net/r?xncJWvvEcWlJcnEHWvWWnWcvlnc
to ensure your account information
is accurate and updated.
The PlayStation(R)Network Team
===================================
LEGAL
"PlayStation" and the "PS" Family logo are registered
trademarks and "PS3" and "PlayStation Network" are
trademarks of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
(C) 2011 Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC.
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
919 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Foster City, CA 94404"
Seems like Sony is trying to change history or create the
venue now.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
