By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Geohot Pleading with Community for Donations in PS3 Jailbreak Case

fordy on 21 February 2011
Wagram said:

Lol. Then I guess I should give nuclear bomb schematics to under developed countries. I'm not the one that's going to use them.

Don't try to make out that the interests of one corporation is similar to the global safety from Nuclear War. Having Sony's keys being distributed is not going to kill people. I know some of you like to think that PS3s control guided missiles etc, but that's simply not the case.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 21 February 2011
fordy said:
Wagram said:

Lol. Then I guess I should give nuclear bomb schematics to under developed countries. I'm not the one that's going to use them.

Don't try to make out that the interests of one corporation is similar to the global safety from Nuclear War. Having Sony's keys being distributed is not going to kill people. I know some of you like to think that PS3s control guided missiles etc, but that's simply not the case.

Also... you can get nuclear bomb schematics online.  Legally.



Xen on 21 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
LivingMetal said:

You guys just need to stop making excuses and just see the truth of geohot being a malicious enabler.  Legality, common sense, and his personal actions point towards this.  It's just sad some of you would trade the love of gaming for a vendeta against Sony.  Your loss of character, not mine.


Just listen to the arguments.  It's about consumer rights to use their devices how they want.  Few if anyone are defending piracy, which is illegal.  The majority are defending their right to do what they want with what they bought.  I have no vendeta against Sony because I'm not retarded enough to pledge loyalty to any multi-national gaming company that could care less about me, only my money.  You're the one with loss of character for taking a stance for a corporation that wants to take away consumer rights.  Fight the pirates, not the modders.  It's a simple concept.

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.

Actually, if he's "guilty as sin" chances are that means Sony is too and will lose the Other OS lawsuit.

B. SCEA’S Statements in Hotz.

In Hotz, SCEA sued several PS3 users for injunctive relief and damages in connection with their purported unauthorized access to and copying of SCEA’s proprietary PS3 technology. In the complaint, SCEA claimed privity of contract with the defendant PS3 users, although the users did not purchase their PS3s directly from SCEA, but rather at retail. SCEA’s complaint in Hotz (attached to the RJN as Exhibit A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant for the following reasons, among others:

(a) On information and belief, Hotz has purposely availed himself of the benefits of this district by doing business with PayPal, Inc., a company located in San Jose, California. Specifically, Hotz has utilized his PayPal account to solicit and obtain financial benefits in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Hotz is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On information and belief, Hotz has used software updates delivered by SCEA for one or more PS3 Systems he is using. To obtain such software, users must consent to the terms and conditions of the PSN User Agreement, which require that both parties 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.

53. All PS3 System users who have used software updates delivered by SCEA for the PS3 System are bound by the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement. A copy of the PSN User Agreement is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. On information and belief, Defendants herein have consented and are subject to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement.

92. SCEA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants agreed to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement and entered into that contract or similar agreement with SCEA. The PSN User Agreement or similar agreement is a written contract that limits their use of the PS3 System, related hardware, and related code, including restricting access and governing allowable uses.

97. SCEA has contractual relationships with users of the PlayStation Network.

SCEA further claims in its Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Case Re: Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“TRO Motion”), filed on January 11, 2011, that “Hotz is bound by the ‘Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement.’” RJN, Exhibit B. The Court ultimately issued the TRO sought by SCEA. RJN, Exhibit C. Thus, in Hotz, SCEA itself argues that SCEA maintains contractual privity with all PS3 users, which supports plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim, and contradicts arguments made by SCEA in its motion to dismiss that claim.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that work against him?

It's not legal Precedent or anything.  It's Sony's arguement in HIS case.  Though yes if true, it works against him... and also sony.  If they find HIM guilty that also means Sony is guilty in the Other OS case.

Compare that to their arguement in the Other OS case.... which actually helps Hotz case... and no doubt will be used as evidence that even Sony doesn't believe what they are saying.

They are argueing that Hotz is guilty because Sony has continueing privity with all of their customers... and is argueing they are not guilty in the OtherOS case because their is no privity between them and their customers.

 

"MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Okay. The reason why we allege we are in privity is because of the fact that there is an express warranty. And implied warranties flow from express warranties, Your Honor. This is all part of the same kind of relationship here.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's do it this way. I understand that part of your argument. What other arguments do you have on the privity issue on implied warranty?

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Well, let's look at one of the exhibits to Carter Ott's declaration in support of this motion. It's Exhibit B, Your Honor. Exhibit B says this is the system software license agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: -- that they say controls here. We've said -- they have said, "Take judicial notice." We oppose that.

But to the extent the Court is going to take judicial notice, you should read the whole thing. Because, what it says is this agreement between a consumer -- I'm reading. The "between a consumer" part isn't in there. But this agreement is a contract with SCE. So the license agreement that Sony contends applies here, they say is a contract between them and the plaintiff. So if you're in a contract with Sony, we think that's privity.

Then they say, "SCE and its licensors reserve the right to bring legal action in the event of a violation of this agreement." So they're saying, "We can sue you, but you can't sue us because we're not in privity." That's one.

Number two, you know, I'm not in the other PlayStation case. I don't know what they alleged in terms of the direct dealings. But here we allege there are many. As part of the package that you buy when you buy the PlayStation, you are buying firmware updates; you are contacting Sony; you are going onto the PlayStation Network....

So just to be clear, Your Honor, we allege there's privity in the express warranty which creates privity in implied warranty. We allege that there are direct dealings between Sony, including the transfer of funds. And we elect that their own documents that they say control here create a privity. They say we are in contract with you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: So that's privity."

What I get from all this, you speak of Sony violating the agreement with the plaintiff? Yeah, that really is something that could work against them.



voty2000 on 21 February 2011
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.


He hasn't been convicted yet so you can't say he broke the law.  This will set a precedent and I sure hope he wins, so I can do what I want with what I buy.

And not do what YOU want with what others buy, but this is what his codes allow.

But Geohotz did not control other peoples devices, which is why I support him.  He simply modded.

He gave people the means for all that crap. That is why I don't.

I guess we disagree on a fundamental level.  I would not punish him for opening the doors for people to then do something illegal. 



Tigerlure on 21 February 2011

What some people don't understand or want to admit on this topic is that normal users like me and plenty others are gonna get screwed by the maybe 5% of people who will use this for homebrew and piracy. Sony is gonna keep feeding us firmware updates that will be a waste of time, time that could be used adding features. Also, the cheaters online will start to gradually increase, especially if Geohot wins, which further steps on the toes of legit gamers who bought their console to play games, not some ridiculous linux function that probably runs 1000x better on your PC.

I'm all for consumer rights. But when your rights step on my rights as a consumer to enjoy the console I paid for, then we have a problem. That's why I'm hoping Sony wins this case.



Around the Network
alekth on 21 February 2011

Regarding the PS3 having all the features now, people could still want to mod it for region-free DVD and BD playback for example. Or want mkv support and more visualizations for music playback.

Those are PS3 features that a lot of people, based on the anecdotical evidence of message boards, want to have.

I'd actually rather have a global screenshot functionality or something more or less completely obscure like remapping the X and O buttons for the OS. Just because it might not interest you, doesn't mean it doesn't interest enough people for such apps to be made since ther are there for the PSP.



fordy on 21 February 2011

Let's look at the two main reasons why people believe that Geohotz is being sued for:

1. Distribution of the master keys

First offf, keys are a form of data. Data can NOT be copyrighted, so all of you claiming that he broke copyright by distributing keys, please shut up. I cannot go to the patent office and ask to copyright the character array "Hello World!". The Master key provides a legal way to publish WITHOUT circumventing any securities. It's an intentionally made front door by Sony. They just didn't make the correct means to protect those keys. They would have no leg to stand on here.

 

2. Customisation of firmware

This is a shady area, because it's difficult to say whtether firmware code was modified, or only amendements were made. Ironically, Sony may have lost their only chance of nailing him, because they removed the OtherOS feature. Had they left it in, and GeoHotz modified the hypervisor drivers, then yes, it could have been a breach. However, this could very well be a new amendment from scratch.



Xen on 21 February 2011
voty2000 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
Xen said:

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.


He hasn't been convicted yet so you can't say he broke the law.  This will set a precedent and I sure hope he wins, so I can do what I want with what I buy.

And not do what YOU want with what others buy, but this is what his codes allow.

But Geohotz did not control other peoples devices, which is why I support him.  He simply modded.

He gave people the means for all that crap. That is why I don't.

I guess we disagree on a fundamental level.  I would not punish him for opening the doors for people to then do something illegal. 

I see that we do.



voty2000 on 21 February 2011
Tigerlure said:

What some people don't understand or want to admit on this topic is that normal users like me and plenty others are gonna get screwed by the maybe 5% of people who will use this for homebrew and piracy. Sony is gonna keep feeding us firmware updates that will be a waste of time, time that could be used adding features. Also, the cheaters online will start to gradually increase, especially if Geohot wins, which further steps on the toes of legit gamers who bought their console to play games, not some ridiculous linux function that probably runs 1000x better on your PC.

I'm all for consumer rights. But when your rights step on my rights as a consumer to enjoy the console I paid for, then we have a problem. That's why I'm hoping Sony wins this case.


I do understand what you're saying and I hate the few that abuse this hack but I'm more concerned about consumer rights then about getting annoyed by some pirate every now and then in a game or annoying firmware updates.  Also, Sony and game publishers will figure out how to block my pirates and cheaters.  MS has done a good job at keeping them at a minumum and Sony has already banned some people.  It will just take Sony time to figure out a method. 

I'm not going to diminish the havoc that pirates cause but my rights are more important to me.  If Sony wins, this will set a precedent for all electronic devices and I will never support that, even if it hurts my online experience. 



Kasz216 on 21 February 2011
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
LivingMetal said:

You guys just need to stop making excuses and just see the truth of geohot being a malicious enabler.  Legality, common sense, and his personal actions point towards this.  It's just sad some of you would trade the love of gaming for a vendeta against Sony.  Your loss of character, not mine.


Just listen to the arguments.  It's about consumer rights to use their devices how they want.  Few if anyone are defending piracy, which is illegal.  The majority are defending their right to do what they want with what they bought.  I have no vendeta against Sony because I'm not retarded enough to pledge loyalty to any multi-national gaming company that could care less about me, only my money.  You're the one with loss of character for taking a stance for a corporation that wants to take away consumer rights.  Fight the pirates, not the modders.  It's a simple concept.

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.

Actually, if he's "guilty as sin" chances are that means Sony is too and will lose the Other OS lawsuit.

B. SCEA’S Statements in Hotz.

In Hotz, SCEA sued several PS3 users for injunctive relief and damages in connection with their purported unauthorized access to and copying of SCEA’s proprietary PS3 technology. In the complaint, SCEA claimed privity of contract with the defendant PS3 users, although the users did not purchase their PS3s directly from SCEA, but rather at retail. SCEA’s complaint in Hotz (attached to the RJN as Exhibit A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant for the following reasons, among others:

(a) On information and belief, Hotz has purposely availed himself of the benefits of this district by doing business with PayPal, Inc., a company located in San Jose, California. Specifically, Hotz has utilized his PayPal account to solicit and obtain financial benefits in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Hotz is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On information and belief, Hotz has used software updates delivered by SCEA for one or more PS3 Systems he is using. To obtain such software, users must consent to the terms and conditions of the PSN User Agreement, which require that both parties 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.

53. All PS3 System users who have used software updates delivered by SCEA for the PS3 System are bound by the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement. A copy of the PSN User Agreement is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. On information and belief, Defendants herein have consented and are subject to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement.

92. SCEA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants agreed to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement and entered into that contract or similar agreement with SCEA. The PSN User Agreement or similar agreement is a written contract that limits their use of the PS3 System, related hardware, and related code, including restricting access and governing allowable uses.

97. SCEA has contractual relationships with users of the PlayStation Network.

SCEA further claims in its Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Case Re: Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“TRO Motion”), filed on January 11, 2011, that “Hotz is bound by the ‘Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement.’” RJN, Exhibit B. The Court ultimately issued the TRO sought by SCEA. RJN, Exhibit C. Thus, in Hotz, SCEA itself argues that SCEA maintains contractual privity with all PS3 users, which supports plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim, and contradicts arguments made by SCEA in its motion to dismiss that claim.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that work against him?

It's not legal Precedent or anything.  It's Sony's arguement in HIS case.  Though yes if true, it works against him... and also sony.  If they find HIM guilty that also means Sony is guilty in the Other OS case.

Compare that to their arguement in the Other OS case.... which actually helps Hotz case... and no doubt will be used as evidence that even Sony doesn't believe what they are saying.

They are argueing that Hotz is guilty because Sony has continueing privity with all of their customers... and is argueing they are not guilty in the OtherOS case because their is no privity between them and their customers.

 

"MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Okay. The reason why we allege we are in privity is because of the fact that there is an express warranty. And implied warranties flow from express warranties, Your Honor. This is all part of the same kind of relationship here.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's do it this way. I understand that part of your argument. What other arguments do you have on the privity issue on implied warranty?

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: Well, let's look at one of the exhibits to Carter Ott's declaration in support of this motion. It's Exhibit B, Your Honor. Exhibit B says this is the system software license agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: -- that they say controls here. We've said -- they have said, "Take judicial notice." We oppose that.

But to the extent the Court is going to take judicial notice, you should read the whole thing. Because, what it says is this agreement between a consumer -- I'm reading. The "between a consumer" part isn't in there. But this agreement is a contract with SCE. So the license agreement that Sony contends applies here, they say is a contract between them and the plaintiff. So if you're in a contract with Sony, we think that's privity.

Then they say, "SCE and its licensors reserve the right to bring legal action in the event of a violation of this agreement." So they're saying, "We can sue you, but you can't sue us because we're not in privity." That's one.

Number two, you know, I'm not in the other PlayStation case. I don't know what they alleged in terms of the direct dealings. But here we allege there are many. As part of the package that you buy when you buy the PlayStation, you are buying firmware updates; you are contacting Sony; you are going onto the PlayStation Network....

So just to be clear, Your Honor, we allege there's privity in the express warranty which creates privity in implied warranty. We allege that there are direct dealings between Sony, including the transfer of funds. And we elect that their own documents that they say control here create a privity. They say we are in contract with you.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PIZZIRUSSO: So that's privity."

What I get from all this, you speak of Sony violating the agreement with the plaintiff? Yeah, that really is something that could work against them.

Well, it's not me speaking of it... it's Sony... vs Sony really.

According to Sony in the Other OS lawsuit, once your console is out of warranty the agreement between you and Sony is null and void and no agreement between you and Sony exists therefore they can remove ANY feature they want from the system by threatening removal of another feature.  So they could theoretically remove your ability to play PS3 games in a firmware update if they really felt like it. 

According to Sony in the George Hotz lawsuit... if you own a PS3... the agreements between you two still apply after the warranty period... and that's why he's guilty.

See, otherwise they couldn't sue him in California, because he lives in New Jersey... they are trying to sue him according to the "You agree any legal complaints will be filed in California." provisions you usually see.

Because they don't think they can win in New Jersey.  

 

So either they should lose the Other OS case, or lose the George Hotz case because they don't have any jurisdiction in which they could prosecute him... and have to pay him 10K, cause they were ordered to put up 10K so that if they lost they could make it right to him.