RichardK Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Anyone defending this criminal is just some kid that dreams of playing PS3 games for free. Not many will admit it, but that is how it is. They will claim that Sony deserves it because they chose to quit supporting something that just wasn't used that much. This criminal will end up in Jail, hopefully for the rest of his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Correction, It could possibly be a violation of the DMCA depending on what the courts say. Again, you are trying to paint Geohot as a criminal. The court may never presume fair use, however, you are also innocent until proven guilty. Geohot Allegedly violated the DMCA You may want to start by following your own advice. Actually circumventing DRM is not always a violation under the DMCA and you must prove that it was not for fair use to be a violation. I'm surprised, for a lawyer, you don't keep up on stuff much. At best Geohot has violated an EULA. ^that is your quote. You should have written "At best Geohot has ALLEGEDLY violated an EULA." It is up to a court to determine whether Geohot indeed violated the EULA which would open him to civil penalties. FYI, there is court precedent that violating the EULA can directly lead to a violation of the DMCA. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/judges-ruling-that-wow-bot-violates-dmca-is-troubling.ars Here, the court ruled that once someone violated the EULA, they no longer had a license to use the software--here it was WoW--so by continuing to play WoW after violating the EULA, it constituted copyright infringment. So if Geohot violated the EULA and continued to play or use his Playstation, then he could have another DCMA violation on his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 The court needs to get their act together and drop this stupid lawsuit and make sure he's banned from ever "rapping" again...please someone make it stop :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 All I know is that I can't play MW2 online since the PS3 was hacked...that is an offense against myself and countless others who are no longer able to play that game. Add in the FACT that custom firmwares will always result in copyright infringement (i.e. pirating games), I'd say he's screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 By releasing it into the wild with full knowledge that the security testing would be used in a manner that would facilitate copyright infringement, I think it would be very hard for him to fall under the exception. This exception was created so that people could find security flaws and then let companies know. As far as I know, it was not intended to have people find flaws and then release it into the wild, hence "maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement". Considering his release did not make edits to the system that would allow backups to be played (that required another patch on top of geohot?s), he can certainly make the case that his patch was released so security experts could find security holes. Since others had or were on track to have access to the keys, it certainly presented an opportunity for nefarious individuals to find and exploit security holes in the PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 If his intentions were to help find security holes, he should have contacted Sony privately. But we're talking about an attention hungry kid who obviously lacks maturity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted February 15, 2011 Veteran Share Posted February 15, 2011 If his intentions were to help find security holes, he should have contacted Sony privately. But we're talking about an attention hungry kid who obviously lacks maturity... Seriously no kidding, I thought it was a joke above that he made a rap about it, but apparently he really did. Warning - Lyrics are NSFW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scratch42069 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 So Frodo is being sued by Sony, how cute lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Considering his release did not make edits to the system that would allow backups to be played (that required another patch on top of geohot?s), he can certainly make the case that his patch was released so security experts could find security holes. Since others had or were on track to have access to the keys, it certainly presented an opportunity for nefarious individuals to find and exploit security holes in the PS3. That exception also has a "good faith" requirement. I don't think was a shock to anyone, much less Geohot, that people used his exploits to pirate games. If he was actually trying to help Sony, then he should have contacted Sony. Releasing it to the wild with full knowledge that a tweak would allow it to pirate games would not seem like good faith to me if I were a judge. In order for him to win, if I were a judge, he would have to somehow argue that he didn't realize that releasing it into the wild would lead--with a small tweak--to people pirating games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stingray Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Seriously no kidding, I thought it was a joke above that he made a rap about it, but apparently he really did. Warning - Lyrics are NSFW. *facepalm* What a dumbass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatiasRaudzus Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Kevin Butler (the commercial guy for Sony) actually retweeted the keys last night. I laughed when he did that lol. edit: Looks like @TheKevinButler deleted his tweet, but I retweeted it before he could :p http://twitter.com/#!/lylesback2/statuses/35206060117598208 I tweeted him the code as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CentralDogma Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 That exception also has a "good faith" requirement. I don't think was a shock to anyone, much less Geohot, that people used his exploits to pirate games. If he was actually trying to help Sony, then he should have contacted Sony. He could have contacted Sony with exploits privately, but he is not required to do so. Security exploits are not always patched by the software vendor, the most immediate example being the PDF exploit for the 2G iPhone witch had to be patched by the community because Apple would not. Releasing it to the wild with full knowledge that a tweak would allow it to pirate games would not seem like good faith to me if I were a judge. In order for him to win, if I were a judge, he would have to somehow argue that he didn't realize that releasing it into the wild would lead--with a small tweak--to people pirating games. You?re assuming that that ?tweak? was easily made. There were several days where people were trying to figure out how to do it. If geohot has the records of the IRC channel during those days, it could be invaluable to showing just how nontrivial that tweak was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 You may want to start by following your own advice. ^that is your quote. You should have written "At best Geohot has ALLEGEDLY violated an EULA." It is up to a court to determine whether Geohot indeed violated the EULA which would open him to civil penalties. FYI, there is court precedent that violating the EULA can directly lead to a violation of the DMCA. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/judges-ruling-that-wow-bot-violates-dmca-is-troubling.ars Here, the court ruled that once someone violated the EULA, they no longer had a license to use the software--here it was WoW--so by continuing to play WoW after violating the EULA, it constituted copyright infringment. So if Geohot violated the EULA and continued to play or use his Playstation, then he could have another DCMA violation on his hands. I did not use the word allegedly to describe the EULA because their is no exemption that could possibly apply to Geohot in it, however in the DMCA their is. Thanks for this link, I am going to read up on this ruling a bit farther, this ruling seems dangerous in how far reaching it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azies Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Corporations run the law, and have the right to impose whatever law they see fit, apparently. **** Capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezard Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 George Hotz, released the exploit, that was his right as a "Security Expert." Now if we look at the way he released it, we can invoke sufficient sufficient reasonable suspicion that it would end as a Copyright Usage Violation and he released it as a form of victory on his end. This kid did something that a lot of people wanted, and that was to enable to running of custom scripts, and be able to sign your own keys. But as we all know, with the release of this master key, it opened the door to the pirates. He may be guilty prima facie, by allegedly circumventing the DRM as well as the probability of enabling copyright violations on the console. It will be up to George Hotz to prove his point. Do not throw him in jail, but fine him. that is my opinion. In another note, he cant rap for crap.... rap...crap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruciz Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Of course I knew what I was doing. Geohot circumvented DRM which is a violation of the DMCA. If you want to start hauling out defenses, go right on ahead. But Court's never presume fair use (it has to be proven by the defendant) so why should I suddenly presume fair use? Sony want the blood of the developer of the PS3jailbreak as without that device none of this would have seen the light of day, and they would still be seen as a very strong developer who in fact developed a system they held secure for 4 years while it had the FIRST & WORST bug found in crypto that would cripple any other organization. they must think since geohot ram glitched the system he was the one to figure out & market the PSjailbreak... Your DMCA violation is the same as rooting an iPhone TBH, special case here where sony pulled OtherOS. One could even argue sony themselves broke it along with consumer laws when they pulled OtherOS from the system without any recourse, so whos at fault? the guys who can re-enable it or sony for pulling it to begin with? Be the same as buying a laptop with Windows 7 for Microsoft to pull it out with an update, PS3 is classified as a computer for FTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I did not use the word allegedly to describe the EULA because their is no exemption that could possibly apply to Geohot in it, however in the DMCA their is. Thanks for this link, I am going to read up on this ruling a bit farther, this ruling seems dangerous in how far reaching it could be. Who needs an exemption? He could just say, "Wasn't me. Didn't do it." Even if he admitted previously that he broke the EULA on national television, that admission still needs to be admitted to a court of law and evaluated (perhaps he was under duress). So, yes, you broke your own "rule" that everyone needs to say "allegedly" before accusing anyone of breaking a law. Sony want the blood of the developer of the PS3jailbreak as without that device none of this would have seen the light of day, and they would still be seen as a very strong developer who in fact developed a system they held secure for 4 years while it had the FIRST & WORST bug found in crypto that would cripple any other organization. they must think since geohot ram glitched the system he was the one to figure out & market the PSjailbreak... Your DMCA violation is the same as rooting an iPhone TBH, special case here where sony pulled OtherOS. One could even argue sony themselves broke it along with consumer laws when they pulled OtherOS from the system without any recourse, so whos at fault? the guys who can re-enable it or sony for pulling it to begin with? Be the same as buying a laptop with Windows 7 for Microsoft to pull it out with an update, PS3 is classified as a computer for FTA. If you're going to allege that Sony broke "consumer laws", you might want to actually cite something instead of pulling it out of thin air. Give me a statute or law that Sony broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I love when real lawyers pull apart the armchair ones! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I love when real lawyers pull apart the armchair ones! :laugh: Just trying to bring a dose of reality to this thread. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Who needs an exemption? He could just say, "Wasn't me. Didn't do it." Even if he admitted previously that he broke the EULA on national television, that admission still needs to be admitted to a court of law and evaluated (perhaps he was under duress). So, yes, you broke your own "rule" that everyone needs to say "allegedly" before accusing anyone of breaking a law. If you're going to allege that Sony broke "consumer laws", you might want to actually cite something instead of pulling it out of thin air. Give me a statute or law that Sony broke. Again, your playing Semantics and you knew full well what I was saying. Again, you've made your point by showing a precedent to make the violation of the EULA a violation of the DMCA, which I consented to. But don't act like you had no idea of how I was using those words, your playing semantics for the sake of arguing their. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Again, your playing Semantics and you knew full well what I was saying. Again, you've made your point by showing a precedent to make the violation of the EULA a violation of the DMCA, which I consented to. But don't act like you had no idea of how I was using those words, your playing semantics for the sake of arguing their. Let me make sure I get this straight: If I say, "Circumventing DRM is a violation under the DMCA." <-- You are upset I didn't write "allegedly". If you say, "At best Geohot has violated an EULA." <-- That is OK by you even if you don't use "allegedly". And I'm the one playing semantics...? Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seizure1990 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 This conversation has been about semantics for a while now >__> GeoHot broke a law. Period. I think the real question is if you think this law is just, but people often make the mistake of thinking that when a big, nasty corporation does something they dislike, it must be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Let me make sure I get this straight: If I say, "Circumventing DRM is a violation under the DMCA." <-- You are upset I didn't write "allegedly". If you say, "At best Geohot has violated an EULA." <-- That is OK by you even if you don't use "allegedly". And I'm the one playing semantics...? Right. I was upset that you did not use the word allegedly because their is exceptions in the DMCA that could apply to him. Lets assume for a second that Geohot has done exactly what he has claimed (its obvious but a court must still decide that), then it is STILL easily possible that he did not violate the DMCA, hence allegedly. However under that same note he 100% violated a EULA. Their is the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeEsquire Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I was upset that you did not use the word allegedly because their is exceptions in the DMCA that could apply to him. Lets assume for a second that Geohot has done exactly what he has claimed (its obvious but a court must still decide that), then it is STILL easily possible that he did not violate the DMCA, hence allegedly. However under that same note he 100% violated a EULA. Their is the difference. You clearly missed my earlier point that if we're going to start calling everything "allegedly", then you have to respect that fact that he could have very real defenses to the EULA violation The easiest example: deny he agreed to the EULA. Just off the top of my head, what if his brother hit "I agree" and Geohot himself never agreed to the EULA? Then he isn't bound by the EULA. Furthermore, there are certain restrictions on what kind of rights you give up via "click agreements". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap For example, I can't write in the EULA, "By clicking agree, you agree to give me $1 million." By no stretch of the imagination is he in 100% violation of the EULA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You clearly missed my earlier point that if we're going to start calling everything "allegedly", then you have to respect that fact that he could have very real defenses to the EULA violation The easiest example: deny he agreed to the EULA. Just off the top of my head, what if his brother hit "I agree" and Geohot himself never agreed to the EULA? Then he isn't bound by the EULA. Furthermore, there are certain restrictions on what kind of rights you give up via "click agreements". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap For example, I can't write in the EULA, "By clicking agree, you agree to give me $1 million." By no stretch of the imagination is he in 100% violation of the EULA. This part tells me you are probably not a real lawyer and say that for internet points For you from the PS3 System Software EULA. By using or accessing the System Software, you agree to be bound by all current terms of this Agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts