Security keys aren't drugs.  Without use they are nothing but a string of numbers.

If I say 9fk2ke99fj3hha0028gh3p1uddyy29na2.  That's just numbers and letters.  Drugs are always drugs.  Basically eveyrone who has read those numbers have been "distributed" the key.  Drugs are always drugs.

Outside that, he doesn't deny distributing it, how many people he distirbuted it too is immatieral and doesn't change anything unless sony  wants to use it to imply damages.

According to Sony it is.  That's included in the charges.  Because the crack bypassed Access controls as well as Copy controls.   It's POSSIBLE/PROBABLE that they will rule that because of the way the PS3 is set up, to crack the access controls is the only way to crack the copy controls that sony is out of luck... but that hasn't been decided yet.  However if they DO rule that the rest of the case falls apart as well as it will be a repeat ruling of the Iphone case.

Also, i'd say it's a huge stretch to suggest it should be held in california based on who downloaded it.  Since the alleged crimes happened in New Jersey.

The scale of distribution is completely immatieral.  Unless sony wanted to use it to prove how much geohot would have to pay them if he loses.  Which again, you would need to prove how many of those people hacked their constoles.

Damage and interest is not rocket science, its an evaluation to the best of the information you have. The IP log is way better then nothing in this regard. We both agree download doesnt automatically equal hacked console (let alone pirated software). The judge will surely take that into consideration too when Sony will ask for a certain amount damage. In any case, they needed it to prove the distribution, im the one thinking they will also use it in order to evaluate the prejudice.

Bottom line this case is full of shit, Sony will not win and they only doing it to achieve something greater.   Even if they win and demand damage fee from Geohotz, He'll just declare Bankrupcy as he will never be able to pay for the millions of legal fee and fine.  In the end Sony know they won't get a dime from him but they still insist to take this to court means they want to gain something greater out of all these whole mess.  A corporate will not spend millions of dollar on legal fee and millions more spend on the PR department to regain customer loyalty  just so they can't get a dime return. 

Except, they didn't need to prove the distribution.  He never denies actually distributing it.  The fact that it was on his website proves distribution.

jurisdiction.

Moving the case to CA, instead of holding it in NJ. That is the whole point, and one of the reasons the judge okayed it. Jurisdiction for internet cases can be moved to another venue if the prosecution can sufficiently prove connection to another state.

That is why they asked for twitter accounts as well, because direct contact (not just site hits) stands a lot better in the jurisdictional approach.

Which was the second arguement they made.  Not the first, which is what we were currently discussing, no?

Though unless it's like 50% i'm confused why sony thinks this would help them jurisdiction wise, unless like I said earlier, they plan to bring someone else into the lawsuit who lives in Caifornia.

Seems like fishing, just based on the fact that Cali is where the hackers like to hangout.

It's two-fold. It's not separate.

One, because CA courts will be a better venue for Sony, advantage wise;

and two, to prove more than just distribution, but large scale distribution...and even malice.

For Sony, they want the case held in CA, and they want compensation based on how much distribution occurred. Two reasons, both coinciding with the IP use as they describe in the subpoena.

I get WHY they want it to be tried in California.  It's just a huge stretch of an arguement.

It's also a huge stretch to use the IP numbers in penalty hearings.

I just want to be sure my comprehension is sound, so feel free to correct me.

You're implying, based on this and past posts in the thread, that these reasons are so much of a stretch that the only logical use would be to pursue the individual IPs?

If not, well I kind of agree. I wouldn't call it a stretch, but I wouldn't call it a favorable position either. It's too early to call the case and how this evidence will affect it (even if this succeeds and it moves to CA, a CA judge might find for the defendant).

My stance on this is that this is the legal system and the way it works. Maybe IP laws need retooling, or the legal system does, but I don't anything particularly eggregious here specifically. It is reasonable that a company whose product is being cracked should be able to fight back, and I would see non-pursuance of these IPs as self-handicapping.