Thankyou.

No Problem, all the same, I wouldn't worry about it.  Just because the supeona's were issued doesn't mean they'll be carried out, the third party groups supeoned could still challenge the merits of them, and if used for evidence later in a different trial, you could always sue that the origional supeona's violated the first ammendement, and would probably have the legal funds to do so, due to... basically every outside legal group considering this a gross misuse of a supeona power.

The more interesting part is that Hotz and his lawyers have signed off on it, they clearly don't expect Sony will find enough California downloads.

No doubt each will try and frame it to the judge differntly.  With Sony saying something like "Look at how many thousands of californians downloaded this link!" with Hotz and his lawyers saying "Look at the percentage of people in this like!"

Or they might try and add just the californian residents to the lawsuit, or add some people to the lawsuit who agreed to PSN's terms to tie the lawsuit to California.  Though, like I said, they could then just fight the supeona.

It's something that shouldn't happen, but it shouldn't have negative consequences.  I mean hell, Sony takes more information from everyone who has a PS3.  The amount of information they take via PSN without explaining what they're taking is actually more distrubing if you ask me.  Espiecally since they specifically say they plan to take "only what they see is needed".  Which apparently is, everything you use on your PS3, including movies you watch, periphreals you attach and the TV you own.

wow dude, really?

"YOu too don't get it. I choose to come to this site. I didn't choose to go to anything sony. get it.
WHY would anything sony seem bad to either of you, It wouldn't. thats why I'm done with you both.
WOW if MS did this you would both have sh-t fit and I've seen MS do less and this site go nuts about it."

Shame on you calling people fanboys and then demonstrating your own ignorance.

This is exactly how it feels when I try to explain the health care public option to this "independant" I know.

You do realize you were wrong though right.

People can be charged for crimes with that information and singled out for prosecution.

In fact, when sony was first denied the supeonas... that was the main reason for the supeonas.  They were denied them because of Hotz legal team fighting it.

You do realize that a court can deny a subpeona without needing someone to fight it, correct?

"Court holds that to obtain such information, in light of First Amendment concerns, "the party seeking the information must demonstrate, by a clear showing on the record, that four requirements are met: (1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose,    (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source."  Finding that the corporation failed to satisfy this "high burden," the Court quashed the subpoena."

I don't know if you're playing a semantics game here kasz, because while yes you can be CHARGED, the case will be thrown out....you will never be CONVICTED. I don't know why you'd choose to focus on what's chargeable when it's obvious the discussion is talking about something a little more tangible.

Using subpoena'd evidence for a reason other than the case at hand breaks the above requirements.....And they will lose both cases.

Watching the youtube, or downloading the file, or visiting his homepage...none of it proves any illegal activity or breach of the DMCA. And yes, AGAIN, they would need to subpeona the IPs for this reason in order to use that information in a case against them.

The only conflicting passage in your link is a very unprofessional, "the judge took Sony at its word, but I don't". Like,.... seriously? THAT IS THE LAW. Doing anything to the people with those IPs would be the biggest mistake Sony could make, both for this case and their image.

How is this even being argued? It is the most illogical argument you could make. It's like me saying, "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you", and then someone argues, "Not if you shoot yourself in the face".

You can, however, it's less likely due to the fact that you've got no one argueing the other side.

You know, if arguemebnts didn't matter.  Lawyers wouldn't bring up issues.

Also... why would it be thrown out?  New evidence found in discovery is fine.  Once they get that information, they can use it for whatever they want. 

If the Supeonas which were ordered are legal... sony can use that information for anything they want.  The only stimpulation on the supeona is that it is "For Lawyers eyes only." which means Sony can't release that information to the public.  Sony can still sue people based on that information though.

The only reason the cases would be thrown out would be if those who were sued later argued that the supeona in which the information was gained was actually illegal and the court ruling was wrong.

I mean, it's pretty simply.

This IP adress downloaded the PS3 crack, which can only be used to bypass our clients security protection, so we want to supeona his identity. (If it isn't static.)

Check.

Ok, so now we want to check his PS3 to see if he downloaded it.  We have probable cause because he owns a PS3 why else would you download it? 

Check.

His PS3 has been cracked, (and he may have pirated games.)

Conviction.  Or more likely settlment, but you get the point.

This is EXACTLY what the RIAA did.

I'll let their actions prove me right. I don't know where you are getting this idea that the discovery process allows you to use your information however you want.

Look, they were denied use of the IPs for that purpose in the first case and now you think that they can use them by asking for them for something else? 

"The only reason the cases would be thrown out would be if those who were sued later argued that the supeona in which the information was gained was actually illegal and the court ruling was wrong."

Like,.that.is.exactly.my.point.jpg

and for added humour:

"Hey mom, can I have 5 dollars for candy?"-"No, we are eating dinner soon, and you don't need candy"- "well then, mom, school is having a field trip to, um, the museum of fine arts tomorrow, and they said we need to have cash for it" - "ok, here you go".- "thanks, mom".

"jimmy, how was museum of fine arts?" - "uhh, I didn't go" - "What did you do with those 5 dollars then?" - "I bought candy" - "Oh well that's ok then, because you lied to my face"

It's based in reality.

You don't realize why the first Supeona was rejected do you?

It had zero to do with them searching for failoverflow.

And EVERYTHING to do with the Supeona's being too broad.

It was ruled that "by supeonaing that information, too many innocent people would be hurt."

It had nothing to do with the Failoverflow people.

Aside from which.  They'll use that info in this case as well.

Kasz, I know what you're saying. I understand.

In this subpeona, EFF also contested it by saying it was overly broad evidence.

You're implying that the subpeona was overly broad in what they could do with the information, but that is not the case. It was overly broad in the extent of the information. As in, they were searching for failoverflow but the subpoenas would return too many people/ implicate too many people who weren't part of failoverflow. This relates to my point that they can't go after people other than failoverflow/they cannot do anything else with the information. 

This is exactly what your writer comments on in your link; dolphins with the tuna.

But there won't be any dolphins because they aren't looking for the tuna. They are going after Geohotz.

If we are going to have to  agree to disagree, then that is fine. 

We will see what happens.

I firmly believe that they aren't going to go after anyone that downloaded the hack or watched youtube etc etc, unless they file and are approved for a new subpeona.

Actually... the Dolphins would be those who went to Gehotz website and DIDN'T download the hack.  Though regardless, this is EXACTLY why the blogger wouldn't take sony at therir word.

There is nothing legally preventing them from using the information to target other people.

It's why you would instead want the supeona narrowed or there specifically to be limits placed on the information by the court, for what it could be used for.  Presumibly tied to a penalty if the documents leaked.

Just how Sony has to put up 10K to pay Geohotz if they lose this lawsuit due to impounding his stuff.