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

Forums - Sony Discussion - judge is giving sony ips from youtube, twitter and geohotz website

mantlepiecek on 05 March 2011
Mr Khan said:

Breach of rights is up for the courts to decide, but the original point of all of this was that they are really screwing themselves by getting that judge to release all that private information. That judge screwed up bigtime, and they are going to get nailed on appeal of that evidence has any impact on the case (or not).

People don't have a right to their IP addresses since they don't own them. You just rent them.

So the judge didn't screw up in anyway. He just allowed Sony to take a look into who saw geohotz vids and hacks lol.

I like how people defend geohotz saying he wasn't the one who allowed piracy. But then they cry "privacy!" when Sony tries to find out all the people who might have had a link with geohotz.

LOL.

What do you want Sony to do then? If geohotz was a gun dealer, and gave a gun legally to "x", I am sure if x kills someone the law can ask geohotz the address of "x". X has no rights to shout "privacy!!" in such a situation nor do Y Z A B C because they all need to be interrogated. Doesn't mean Y Z A B C will all get hanged LOL.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 05 March 2011
mantlepiecek said:
Mr Khan said:

Breach of rights is up for the courts to decide, but the original point of all of this was that they are really screwing themselves by getting that judge to release all that private information. That judge screwed up bigtime, and they are going to get nailed on appeal of that evidence has any impact on the case (or not).

People don't have a right to their IP addresses since they don't own them. You just rent them.

So the judge didn't screw up in anyway. He just allowed Sony to take a look into who saw geohotz vids and hacks lol.

I like how people defend geohotz saying he wasn't the one who allowed piracy. But then they cry "privacy!" when Sony tries to find out all the people who might have had a link with geohotz.

LOL.

What do you want Sony to do then? If geohotz was a gun dealer, and gave a gun legally to "x", I am sure if x kills someone the law can ask geohotz the address of "x". X has no rights to shout "privacy!!" in such a situation nor do Y Z A B C because they all need to be interrogated. Doesn't mean Y Z A B C will all get hanged LOL.

We want Sony to follow the law, and not just wag their team of lawyers around to try to get their way. Sue the pirates much as you always have, it rarely works, but isn't that just tough?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

theprof00 on 05 March 2011
Mr Khan said:
theprof00 said:
Mr Khan said:

1That could be where removing Other OS comes back to haunt them, then, because doubtlessly the terms of service reserved Sony's right to do so. They have been acting like users don't own the product, which would then void their ability to tout their ToS with impunity. The whole circumvention of DRM thing is a grey area anyway under the DMCA, and in this case they would have to prove substantially that Hotz intended this to be released for the purposes of piracy

2And i know distribution of copyrighted files is what's illegal. The fun part is that, as SSJ12 pointed out, script and keygens and such cannot be copyrighted, merely patented, and there's nothing wrong at all about distributing the details of a patented item

1Answered in a post above
2 If the people doing the suing were the keygen maker, then I'd agree that you were right. However, if the people doing the suing was Intel, and it was against the person or people that created the keygen, then I'd say you're wrong. Law would agree with me, which is why keygens and torrents and things of that nature are often hosted on international servers in one of the scandinavian countries (I think it's Sweden).

Also, Sony was sued for removing other OS. If I remember correctly, everyone here was so happy about that. Now on the other side of the same coin, everyone is upset. That looks bad on our community. I agree that Sony breached consumer rights by removing Other OS, but their rights are also being breached now.

Breach of rights is up for the courts to decide, but the original point of all of this was that they are really screwing themselves by getting that judge to release all that private information. That judge screwed up bigtime, and they are going to get nailed on appeal of that evidence has any impact on the case (or not).

If your hope in a successful appeal helps you sleep at night, then I'm not going to bother crushing your hopes.

George will not win. Youtube viewers will not be sued, modders will not be sued. Their consoles will be locked out, or Sony will introduce new measures in an updated console if they cannot be effecively locked out. Suing the modders and hackers will not occur, but George is going to lose.



theprof00 on 05 March 2011
kowenicki said:

what about someone that just happened to watch him sell that gun on you tube?

that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and the argument. 

Are you going to continue to purposely misinterpret what is perfectly spelled out in the OP?



LivingMetal on 05 March 2011

"...after he published an encryption key and software tools on his website..."

If it weren't for this, the situation wouldn't have gotten this far.  Blame Geohot, not Sony.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 05 March 2011
LivingMetal said:

"...after he published an encryption key and software tools on his website..."

If it weren't for this, the situation wouldn't have gotten this far.  Blame Geohot, not Sony.

Which we've explained is interpretable as being within his legal rights of allowing consumers to pursue legal activities (that could in turn lead to illegal activities, but where's the burden of proof lie on that?). Sony's only compounding illegalities on top of illegalities



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

theprof00 on 05 March 2011

If Sony pursues anything further than this, if they attempt to sue the people who downloaded the hack, or people who watched a video, then I will be completely against it, and I will apologize.

But.That.Will.Not.Happen

According to standard law regarding jurisdiction, the place where infractions or potential infractions occurred the most is where the case is held. For example, if you sell me somthing online, and I take you to small claims court because of some infraction of the deal, you will have to come to me.

Similarly, the infraction IS the video. They want to know where the infraction occurred the most so that they can claim jurisdiction in a court that is beneficial to their case. This is common in law. The video was the distribution, and though the infraction started in NJ, the infraction occurred when the video was viewed.



theprof00 on 05 March 2011


theprof00 on 05 March 2011

If Sony pursues anything further than this, if they attempt to sue the people who downloaded the hack, or people who watched a video, then I will be completely against it, and I will apologize.

But.That.Will.Not.Happen

According to standard law regarding jurisdiction, the place where infractions or potential infractions occurred the most is where the case is held. For example, if you sell me somthing online, and I take you to small claims court because of some infraction of the deal, you will have to come to me.

Similarly, the infraction IS the video. They want to know where the infraction occurred the most so that they can claim jurisdiction in a court that is beneficial to their case. This is common in law. The video was the distribution, and though the infraction started in NJ, the infraction occurred when the video was viewed.



Mr Khan on 05 March 2011
theprof00 said:

If Sony pursues anything further than this, if they attempt to sue the people who downloaded the hack, or people who watched a video, then I will be completely against it, and I will apologize.

But.That.Will.Not.Happen

According to standard law regarding jurisdiction, the place where infractions or potential infractions occurred the most is where the case is held. For example, if you sell me somthing online, and I take you to small claims court because of some infraction of the deal, you will have to come to me.

Similarly, the infraction IS the video. They want to know where the infraction occurred the most so that they can claim jurisdiction in a court that is beneficial to their case. This is common in law. The video was the distribution, and though the infraction started in NJ, the infraction occurred when the video was viewed.

If the infraction occurs by distribution, it comes from where it was uploaded. That's what Sony would be doing if it were a normal pirate, so they're just being opportunistic, which is what this entire case is about in the first place: opportunistic persecution of one man because they're incapable of protecting their own products effectively



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.