GEOHOT takin it to tha streetz dawg

[mDust]

Also, at least from the articles I've read, he made it very clear at every stage of his work that he was not facilitating piracy. Just because something that he made makes it easier for pirates to work doesn't necessarily mean that he is facilitating piracy. That's like saying road pavers are facilitating speeders by making roads that can be driven on safely at speeds higher than the speed limit. Or saying hardware stores are facilitating burglars by selling hammers. A good example of what I'm talking about is the PC software security industry. Stuff like what geohot did happens ALL THE TIME there. But do the companies get all upset and sue the people airing their dirty laundry to the world? No! They fix the damn problem...hell, a lot of companies offer rewards to do what he did.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search
While he's not guilty of piracy, copyright infringement, etc himself, he made it much easier for people to do those things. Knowingly facilitating a crime is a crime. If a bank robber didn't know how to get into the vault, and I come along and show him, that makes the robbery possible whereas it wasn't before. If I take a mandated governor off a vehicle and then the owner uses the vehicle to outrun the police, I facilitated the get away.

Like I said before; yes, he's a jacka**. That doesn't excuse using the US Judicial system as your plaything to punish people you don't like.

You can't just take someone to court to get a restraining order. It doesn't matter how rich or influential you are...there are steps that have to be taken beforehand, which means there's more to this story than has been told. I would almost bet that geohot has been baiting Sony for a while and wanted the situation to escalate for publicity. I'm not sure if he expected to get sued or not, but it's not like Sony is going to get anything out of a young kid anyway. The lawsuit is just so Sony can prove a point, and that is "If you even think about slightly destabilizing our profitable system, we'll crush you."

[d_stilgar]

While he's not guilty of piracy, copyright infringement, etc himself, he made it much easier for people to do those things. Knowingly facilitating a crime is a crime. If a bank robber didn't know how to get into the vault, and I come along and show him, that makes the robbery possible whereas it wasn't before. If I take a mandated governor off a vehicle and then the owner uses the vehicle to outrun the police, I facilitated the get away.

The problems with charges of "facilitating" are that in this case is that he is doing little more than making the PS3 into another computer. Are all the computer hardware companies facilitating piracy by making the stuff I use to make copies of rented games and movies? How about Microsoft, Apple, and anyone who has ever contributed to Linux for making that hardware easy to use? Is my ISP facilitating internet piracy by providing me with internet service?

He's modifying hardware that he has legally purchased and owns and showing people how to do it themselves. IMO, He is no more guilty of facilitation than any hardware company, software company, or ISP.

Sony hasn't made this easy. Their EULA has been a moving target and that sucks. EULA takes ownership out of the hardware. Any punishment that Sony can give is within the EULA. "If you don't do as this says than we'll ban you from updates and server access." But the fact remains that people who buy the hardware own it and they can do what they want from it. The company that made it and the company that sold it no longer have any legal say in the matter. He can do what he wants with it and if it's such a good thing that other people want to do it as well then maybe Sony should take a listen and follow suit.

[x88x]

http://www.google.com/search?client=...=Google+Search
While he's not guilty of piracy, copyright infringement, etc himself, he made it much easier for people to do those things. Knowingly facilitating a crime is a crime. If a bank robber didn't know how to get into the vault, and I come along and show him, that makes the robbery possible whereas it wasn't before. If I take a mandated governor off a vehicle and then the owner uses the vehicle to outrun the police, I facilitated the get away."

Ok, yes, by the strict definition, he did facilitate piracy. So does every recordable media manufacturer. And every hard drive manufacturer. And every company that makes software that lets you write to any recordable media. Whoops, I just potentially facilitated some random person breaking into someone's house. Guess that means they should sue me. Hell, by the strict definition, Sony facilitated piracy on the PS3 by making it. Is that a ridiculous argument? Yes, definitely. But that's my point.

The funny thing is that 16 years ago, Sony was sitting on the other side of the table in the Sony vs Universal case of 1984, arguing that making Betamax recorders did not mean that they were contributing to copyright infringement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...y_Studios,_Inc.

What I'm hoping comes out of this is that the 'smartphone jailbreaking' exemption gets expanded to include all products.

[LiTHiUM0XiD3]

i second x88x notion in hopes that all devices become freely-usable...
if you would like to actually see the TRO and such his site is at www.geohot.com it has all the documents put up and it is his own personal passive website..
i rly usually dont like his attitude either.... but sony is using the law to scare away hardware hackers from givin us device freedom..
im on his side on this one.... i love using this virgin mobile iphone 3gs on the rogers network.. without pioneers like him... i woulda been screwed into a 3 year contract...

[mDust]

Defendant George Hotz is bound by the “Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement” (the “PSN User Agreement”), ¶14 of which states in relevant part 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.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO

That is why the court case is held in California. It's not some tactic the Sony lawyers came up with to screw geohot over at the last minute. Just because the legal agreements are ridiculous, doesn't mean you aren't bound by them when you take whatever action seals the deal. Anyone else that is using a PS3 is bound by the same.

Yesterday, for example, an article trumpeted that “PS3 Software Piracy Begins as First Game is Played on an Unmodded Playstation 3.”Bricker Decl. at ¶2, Exh. A. The article proceeds to explain:

That didn’t take long, did it? The root key crack that was uncovered by Geohot [i.e., Defendant George Hotz] and other modders has
the door wide open for rampant PlayStation 3 piracy, and the first pirated game on an unmodded PS3 has been done.

See also
, Bricker Decl. at ¶30, Exh. CC. This motion seeks to close the door for rampant piracy that Defendants have illegally pried open in violation of federal and California law.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO

Yeah, he definitely facilitated piracy amongst other things and there is NO way he didn't know he was doing exactly this. According to geohots wikipedia page, he's some kind of electronics/robotics prodigy and a genius. He's been a finalist in several related competitions around the globe. He's not an idiot despite that video. "I didn't know this would happen" is not going to fly in court.

It's funny how page 6 which describes geohots illegal activities is blanked out. I wonder if he's done a lot of questionable things that haven't been publicly mentioned yet and deleted that page before uploading? Perhaps he just pleads the 5th to his fans...

6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7)(B) – Intent to Extort
Finally, SCEA will likely prevail on its claim under §1030(a)(7)(B), which prohibits “intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value” by threatening “to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access.” Hotz violated this provision when, in the same post in which the published SCEA’s Keys, he attempted to obtain from SCEA “a thing of value” in the form of employment: “if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me.” Bricker Decl. at ¶22, Exh. U.To prevent further harm to SCEA, the Court should immediately enjoin Defendants’ unauthorized access of the PS3 Systems.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739945/Motion-for-TRO

Now, this is just complete BS. Not even a hint of extortion there. He didn't specify that he required payment. For all Sony knows he might have just needed an address to mail a USB key with instructions on how to do it right for once.

As a cursory matter, Defendant Hotz vehemently objects to Plaintiff's attempt to classify him as a hacker and to assert, without authority or a good faith basis, that Defendant Hotz has any association or connection with Defendants “Bushing,” Hector Cantero, Sven Peter and “Segher”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46819931/19-Main

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, this kid is definitely not a hacker and has no connection whatsoever to the people that he collaborated with to discover the root key. Did he just find the root key on the main screen one day? Did not he and the other defendants find the various keys which geohot then used to find the root key?
This is where they collaborated. You can no longer see it because it's by invite only now. I guess they did that in an effort to hide evidence. I hope they deleted the evidence though because it only takes a subpoena to crack that open in court.

Circumvention devices and game piracy damage our industry and can potentially injure the online experience for you, our loyal PlayStation customers, via hacks and cheats.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/...ated-software/

I completely agree with this. No good is going to come of the complete circumvention of security on the PS3. It's not a phone that is limited to only one of many networks. It's a gaming machine that is designed to run multiplayer games in a fair and stable environment...but not anymore. What do the users gain from this hack?

• They can run pirated games/movies.
• PS3 viruses.
• The instability of modded software.
• A multitude of 9 year old cheaters in every game.
• The option of connecting to another network...if one ever crops up...hopefully one does because this IS related to the PSN bannings.

I think these guys were trying too hard to turn a PS3 into a PC. I feel they have failed and will get a lot of unsuspecting users permanently banned from the PSN along the way. On top of that, they have opened the door to piracy and cheating. Shouldn't Sony be pissed?

[OvRiDe]

The funny thing is that 16 years ago, Sony was sitting on the other side of the table in the Sony vs Universal case of 1984...

Actually 1984 would be 27 years ago.

[x88x]

That is why the court case is held in California. [..]

I didn't know about that bit in their EULA. That explains a bit.

Yeah, he definitely facilitated piracy amongst other things and there is NO way he didn't know he was doing exactly this. According to geohots wikipedia page, he's some kind of electronics/robotics prodigy and a genius. He's been a finalist in several related competitions around the globe. He's not an idiot despite that video. "I didn't know this would happen" is not going to fly in court.

I think you're missing the point. Obviously he knew that it could be used for copyright infringement. A whole host of different devices and software products can be used for copyright infringement (for example, the product that Sony was defending back in '84). The difference is that he didn't (as far as I know) make anything for the express purpose of infringing copyrights. He found a brick, yes, but someone else took it, smashed the window, and ran off with the goods. A good example of what I mean is the Bittorrent protocol. It's a great protocol that provides a bunch of useful benefits over other file transfer protocols. And it just happens to be used a lot for piracy. Does that mean Bram Cohen should be charged with aiding piracy? A lot of servers that host pirated material run Linux. Does that mean that Linus Torvalds should be charged with aiding piracy? Should the company that sold a hit-and-run driver gas be charged as an accessory to that crime? If someone buys a gun, through normal, legal channels, and then goes and kills someone with it, the gun salesperson is not liable. If I buy a car, then go crash it into someone's house, the person who sold me the car is not liable for the damages.

For a more direct comparison, how about the homebrew channel on the Wii? It gives you most of the legitimate freedoms that geohot's hack do. And it is also widely used for piracy. But does Nintendo go after the people who made the homebrew channel? No, they patch the security holes that were used to enter the system, and leave the homebrew channel alone. And they have way more direct interest in preventing piracy than Sony does, since they actually make a lot of games for their platform. Instead of going after the people making things that would benefit a variety of users and a variety of uses (some perfectly legitimate), they actually go after the people distributing pirated material.

It's not a phone that is limited to only one of many networks. It's a gaming machine that is designed to run multiplayer games in a fair and stable environment.

No, it's also a computing platform that happens to be used by the majority of its users as a gaming platform. For the record, I'm not contesting Sony's right to ban hacked consoles from their network. What I have a problem with is their reaction to people trying to use their product for any purpose other than exactly what they want it to be used for. They want to keep their network clean and working the way they want it to, ok, fine, good for them. But to come into my home and think they can tell me what I can and cannot do with a product that I own...no. That I am not ok with. Well...not that Sony could do that to me anyway since I don't own any of their products...and they do seem to be doing their best to keep it that way.

What do the users gain from this hack?

• Ability to run homebrew software.
• Ability to run whatever the hell they want on hardware that they purchased.
• Restoration of a manufacturer-advertised feature.

Actually 1984 would be 27 years ago.

Doh! Math fail. Still, to completely change sides on an issue after setting a groundbreaking case..

[mDust]

I think you're missing the point. Obviously he knew that it could be used for copyright infringement. A whole host of different devices and software products can be used for copyright infringement (for example, the product that Sony was defending back in '84). The difference is that he didn't (as far as I know) make anything for the express purpose of infringing copyrights. He found a brick, yes, but someone else took it, smashed the window, and ran off with the goods.

A more accurate analogy would be that he came across a locked security door that was keeping the blackhats, cheaters, and pirates out. Seeing this, he decided to open it for them because that's his hobby. I guess that's not really an analogy though...

A good example of what I mean is the Bittorrent protocol. It's a great protocol that provides a bunch of useful benefits over other file transfer protocols. And it just happens to be used a lot for piracy. Does that mean Bram Cohen should be charged with aiding piracy? A lot of servers that host pirated material run Linux. Does that mean that Linus Torvalds should be charged with aiding piracy? Should the company that sold a hit-and-run driver gas be charged as an accessory to that crime? If someone buys a gun, through normal, legal channels, and then goes and kills someone with it, the gun salesperson is not liable. If I buy a car, then go crash it into someone's house, the person who sold me the car is not liable for the damages.

And clowns are responsible if a fat man laughs his way to a heart-attack? And ducks are responsible if the driver of a down comforter delivery truck has an allergic reaction and drives through the side of a school bus? No, ridiculous examples are ridiculous. Geohot cracked a safe for the robber and perhaps a few innocent bystanders. But which do you think is going to take the most advantage of it? Even if he had the best of intentions he should have seen that the costs would be too high. The problem is the costs weren't on his bill...so who cares, right? +1 for hackers, -10 for gamers.

For a more direct comparison, how about the homebrew channel on the Wii? It gives you most of the legitimate freedoms that geohot's hack do. And it is also widely used for piracy. But does Nintendo go after the people who made the homebrew channel? No, they patch the security holes that were used to enter the system, and leave the homebrew channel alone. And they have way more direct interest in preventing piracy than Sony does, since they actually make a lot of games for their platform. Instead of going after the people making things that would benefit a variety of users and a variety of uses (some perfectly legitimate), they actually go after the people distributing pirated material.

Sony is trying to chop the head off the snake. It's already too late for the security of the PS3, but it's not too late to make geohot an example. The fact that Nintendo keeps patching the security holes means that they don't approve of what's going on. They're probably just letting the hackers do a free Q/A check on their code. Wouldn't they make the channel official if they approved? If Sony is successful with this and similar lawsuits, who's to say Nintendo and Microsoft won't follow in the same foot steps if necessary?

No, it's also a computing platform that happens to be used by the majority of its users as a gaming platform. For the record, I'm not contesting Sony's right to ban hacked consoles from their network. What I have a problem with is their reaction to people trying to use their product for any purpose other than exactly what they want it to be used for. They want to keep their network clean and working the way they want it to, ok, fine, good for them. But to come into my home and think they can tell me what I can and cannot do with a product that I own...no. That I am not ok with. Well...not that Sony could do that to me anyway since I don't own any of their products...and they do seem to be doing their best to keep it that way.

You got that backwards: the PS3 is a game console with added features. PS1: game console with CD playback. PS2: game console with DVD/CD playback. PS3: game console with BR/DVD/CD playback and internet access.
I don't think Sony is suing anyone that has merely hacked their console and used it for another purpose. They're suing the guys that cracked the base security to allow anything to run and then encouraged the PS3 customer base to use it by making it incredibly easy to do so. If you want to bolt wheels on the thing and make it fetch you a beer or two while gaming and streaming 10 movies at once, knock yourself out. I assure you that you won't be sued. Also, post a worklog.

• Ability to run homebrew software.
• Ability to run whatever the hell they want on hardware that they purchased.
• Restoration of a manufacturer-advertised feature.

• Why? (see below)
• You have a perfectly good PC that can already do anything you want, why does your PS3, phone and iPod have to each do anything imaginable? I'll never understand why everyone wants devices that do a ton of different things below mediocrity instead of a device that does one or two things sublimely...when did specialization become a sin?
• Where did Sony advertise homebrew software? Otherwise, what manufacturer-advertised feature?

[NightrainSrt4]

Geohot actually went out of his way in the firmware he released to make it so you couldn't run copyrighted games (backups).

Sony wasn't suing anyone when all you had to do was plug in a usb stick to run copyrighted games.

[blaze15301]

i think the moral of this storry is dont **** with sony.