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

Icyedge on 22 February 2011
voty2000 said:
Icyedge said:
voty2000 said:
Icyedge 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

Nothing refrain you to mod your stuff and explain to others how to do it. Still, nobody have the right to modify others work and post it on the internet.


Hackers have been doing it for years so yes, they do have the right.  Sony wants to change that.

Wow, internet is making people desensitive to what is legal and what is not. It has always been illegal to modify others work and distribute it. Its just that its hard to rule when it comes to internet.

It's illegal to modify someones work and then distribute for a profit or for the sole purpose of doing something illegal.  Geohotz is not doing that, people may do illegal things with it but he has not and does not condone it.

What?



Around the Network
alekth on 22 February 2011

@fordy: probably a lot of truth there.

@voty2000: commercially or not, doesn't matter, you're not allowed to distribute derivatives of copyrighted works without permission.

This isn't what he's being sued for though.



fordy on 22 February 2011
Icyedge said:
voty2000 said:
Icyedge 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

Nothing refrain you to mod your stuff and explain to others how to do it. Still, nobody have the right to modify others work and post it on the internet.


Hackers have been doing it for years so yes, they do have the right.  Sony wants to change that.

Wow, internet is making people desensitive to what is legal and what is not. It has always been illegal to modify others work and distribute it. Its just that its hard to rule when it comes to internet.

So which part was other people's work? From what I can gather, the CFW was his work, and the PS3 updater (not modified) read it in and ran with it.



voty2000 on 22 February 2011
alekth said:

@fordy: probably a lot of truth there.

@voty2000: commercially or not, doesn't matter, you're not allowed to distribute derivatives of copyrighted works without permission.

This isn't what he's being sued for though.

He's being sued for violating the Digital Millineum Copyright Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/playstation3-root-code/



alekth on 22 February 2011
voty2000 said:
alekth said:

@fordy: probably a lot of truth there.

@voty2000: commercially or not, doesn't matter, you're not allowed to distribute derivatives of copyrighted works without permission.

This isn't what he's being sued for though.

He's being sued for violating the Digital Millineum Copyright Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/playstation3-root-code/

That act contains way more than distributing copyrighted goods.

“Hotz published on his website the ‘3.55 Firmware Jailbreak’ code, a circumvention device or component thereof that disables, avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates and/or impairs a critical TPM (technology protection measure) in the PS3 System,” <- this is the accuation under the DMCA, the other 7 claims aren't even about it. They never accuse him of distributing their copyrighted property, and the only accusation of such a crime is a principle assumption that someone else will with the information he provided.



Around the Network
voty2000 on 22 February 2011
alekth said:
voty2000 said:
alekth said:

@fordy: probably a lot of truth there.

@voty2000: commercially or not, doesn't matter, you're not allowed to distribute derivatives of copyrighted works without permission.

This isn't what he's being sued for though.

He's being sued for violating the Digital Millineum Copyright Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/playstation3-root-code/

That act contains way more than distributing copyrighted goods.

“Hotz published on his website the ‘3.55 Firmware Jailbreak’ code, a circumvention device or component thereof that disables, avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates and/or impairs a critical TPM (technology protection measure) in the PS3 System,” <- this is the accuation under the DMCA, the other 7 claims aren't even about it. They never accuse him of distributing their copyrighted property, and the only accusation of such a crime is a principle assumption that someone else will with the information he provided.

Got it.



fordy on 22 February 2011
alekth said:
voty2000 said:
alekth said:

@fordy: probably a lot of truth there.

@voty2000: commercially or not, doesn't matter, you're not allowed to distribute derivatives of copyrighted works without permission.

This isn't what he's being sued for though.

He's being sued for violating the Digital Millineum Copyright Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/playstation3-root-code/

That act contains way more than distributing copyrighted goods.

“Hotz published on his website the ‘3.55 Firmware Jailbreak’ code, a circumvention device or component thereof that disables, avoids, bypasses, removes, deactivates and/or impairs a critical TPM (technology protection measure) in the PS3 System,” <- this is the accuation under the DMCA, the other 7 claims aren't even about it. They never accuse him of distributing their copyrighted property, and the only accusation of such a crime is a principle assumption that someone else will with the information he provided.


Interesting thing is, the security is still in place. He just uses the front door provided by the master key.



fordy on 22 February 2011

Another reason to NOT support Sony on this case:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/42690/Sony-vs-Hotz-sends-dangerous-message

 

EFF claims lawsuit against PS3 hack scares off researchers and customers

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has spoken out against Sony’s efforts to prosecute George Hotz, the man behind the PS3 hack.

The civil liberties group claims that the legislation that forms the basis of Sony’s lawsuit – the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – can be used to unfairly punish customers.

It could even scare off legitimate security researchers, who “will be afraid to publish their results lest they be accused of a circumventing a technological protection measure”.

On its website, the EFF said: “We’ve been concerned that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be abused to try to make alleged contract violations into crimes. We’ve never been sorrier to be right. These two things are precisely what’s happening in Sony vs Hotz.

“Sony is sending another dangerous message: that it has rights in the computer it sells you even after you buy it, and therefore can decide whether your tinkering with that computer is legal or not.



Kasz216 on 22 February 2011
alekth said:

Probably Sony's strongest point is him distributing it. But yes, he's also getting sued for circumventing access control measures.

I think Sony might have gotten a lot less negative reactions if they had simply sued for distributing his tools and the numbers. Other than the modding they are also suing for unauthorized computer access (Sony has to authorize you to tinker with your PS3?) and tresspassing on Sony's ownership to the PS3 (that you and others bought) among others.

In an age where my microwave is running its software, companies shouldn't be allowed to retain some retarded leasing model that would allow them to claim ownership of purchased products.


You think that's scary, you should see what they're argueing in the Other OS lawsuit.

According to them, any promises they make you last only until the warranty is up, since once the warranty is up you can't even expect your console will run!

So, as long as your PS3 is 1 year old, they have full rights to remove ANY functionality they want from said PS3.  (This includes playing games by the way.)

 

If that line of arguement is held as true, basically any company is free to deactivate your purchase after a year if they get their hands on it.  Combined with this ruling it would mean that if you try and fix your property that they broke... they can sue YOU!



alekth on 22 February 2011

Yep, pretty scary stuff overall.

Well, according to Sony's ToS, they are already in their right to plague me with "implementation of upgrades or devices intended to discontinue unauthorized use" because I fail any authorized use as early as the first couple of lines in the ToS by not using "the PS3™ system in the country in which the PS3™ system was designed by SCE to operate". Though curiously enough they explicitely don't prohibit export so yeah, it's too much of a mess. And frankly while the EU is a bit better with consumer rights, the general Copyright directive is worse than the DMCA, luckily some countries have reasonable interpretations.