By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 06 March 2011
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
thranx said:

Are you trying to say american law is not open to interpretaion? I mean that is the whole point of a new precedent, I know the laws are not rewritten, hence why i said "bend the law/create new law through interpretation." I should have worded it better. It changes how the laws are viewed and judged by the judges, and this does change. That is what I fear. Its a very valid fear in this day in with coroporations who put profit over other things.

Let me try to clarify this "argument".

What you are saying, is that there is no law against what Geohotz did. Is that correct? I gather that this is your point due to your reference to "bending" or "precedent" or anything similar. I assume that what you are saying is that no law exists, and that it will take a different interpretation of another law to CREATE this new precedent in which this case can be referred to in future cases or used to create new exemptions.

Read up on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

Now I don't believe that using the ps3 rootkey is protected by DMCA as it's not cracking any of its security, but Geohot distributed this code which can be used to circumvent piracy security. That's covered under the DMCA. He doesn't have to create any program or hack to enable piracy. All he has to do is distribute the code to allow for security circumvention. (Which is what he did). Also, the DMCA protects against reverse engineering, and if they can prove that (which they can), then that's another thing against Geohot.

As such, it is not a different "interpretation" that Sony needs. They just need the court to follow the letter of the law. Geohot winning would be a landmark case, not the opposite. If Geohot were to win, his precedent would allow for reverse engineering and programs would become available that automated reverse engineering, and came with instructions on how to create whatever you wanted to pirate without security measures.

Imagine, instead of downloading a pirated/cracked game, you would download an automated reverse engineering program (for example, something like a bit-torrent program) and then downloaded the game, and the program would crack the game for you using an instruction set that you downloaded for the specific game. That is what Geohot winning this case would allow. This would also allow for any company to reverse engineer a product and then resell it under their own brand. He is NOT going to win.

As far as what i have read what he did was akin to jailbreaking your device for your use and posting instrucutions for others to do so. Which as far as I knew was similar to the iphone case which apple loss. Thus the precedent would be in hotz favor albeit a difference device.

 

In regards to your exapmle i do not see how that is the case. It would be the person that uploaded the game for download or downloaded the game who should be punushed. Not the person who created the program. It is illegal to pirate software already. Maybe I am confused by your example. But please tell me how this differs from jailbreaking any device