PlayStation 3 Hacking Lawsuit Hits a Snag

[Athinira]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

 

[JDKJ]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

I think it's the "within the law" part of your statement that's the operative part, not the "FREEDOM" part. And, but for few and rare exceptions, circumvention of a mechanism intended to protect copyrights is, as a general rule, outlawed by the DMCA. How the courts will come down on the issue of circumvention for purposes that don't involve obvious piracy is no where near settled and remains to be seen but, at this point in time and until a body of clear legal precedent saying otherwise is established, circumvention for whatever purpose does amount to skating on thin ice.

 

[Athinira]

I think it's the "within the law" part of your statement that's the operative part, not the "FREEDOM" part. And, but for few and rare exceptions, circumvention of a mechanism intended to protect copyrights is, as a general rule, outlawed by the DMCA.

The point here is that this rule should, AFAIK apply to the games themself, not the system they are run on. If i have a computer and a computer game in the United States, i can do whatever i want with the computer, but I'm still not allowed to circumvent the copy protection on the game.

As soon as you start to tie in the copy protection with the physical product (in this case the PlayStation 3) rather than the copyrightet products (in this case, games), you are pretty much asking for it.

Also, while it's true that Geohot and fail0verflow has provided a few tools that allows you to mess around with the PS3, they actually haven't provided any specific product that circumvents the copy protection on the games themself. They have provided the necessary information on how to do so by disclosing the keys to the playstation, but that shouldn't fall under that category. They haven't released any custom firmwares yet, only self-written software that is capable of running on stock firmware.

 

[JDKJ]

I think it's the "within the law" part of your statement that's the operative part, not the "FREEDOM" part. And, but for few and rare exceptions, circumvention of a mechanism intended to protect copyrights is, as a general rule, outlawed by the DMCA.

The point here is that this rule should, AFAIK apply to the games themself, not the system they are run on. If i have a computer and a computer game in the United States, i can do whatever i want with the computer, but I'm still not allowed to circumvent the copy protection on the game.

As soon as you start to tie in the copy protection with the physical product (in this case the PlayStation 3) rather than the copyrightet products (in this case, games), you are pretty much asking for it.

Also, while it's true that Geohot and fail0verflow has provided a few tools that allows you to mess around with the PS3, they actually haven't provided any specific product that circumvents the copy protection on the games themself. They have provided the necessary information on how to do so by disclosing the keys to the playstation, but that shouldn't fall under that category. They haven't released any custom firmwares yet, only self-written software that is capable of running on stock firmware.

The Act doesn't require provision of a specific and complete tangible product that allows circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms. Rather, the Act states that "no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that" circumvents copyright protection mechanisms. A mere part or piece or portion of any technology, product, service, device, or component is enough.

 

[vxicepickxv]

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it.

So, when you run out of gasoline, are you buying a new car? Do you change the tires, sea covers, or radio? After all if you don't put the right fuel in your car, you can damage it.

This is the exact same logic you used. Under the current legal system, it's also not a correct statement.

 

[JDKJ]

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it.

So, when you run out of gasoline, are you buying a new car? Do you change the tires, sea covers, or radio? After all if you don't put the right fuel in your car, you can damage it.

This is the exact same logic you used. Under the current legal system, it's also not a correct statement.

SomethingAmazing is in fact correct. When you purchase a game console, you haven't bought the software in the console. You've only licensed it from the manufacturer. And the terms of that license are usually found in the EULA with which you some how and in some way agreed and signed off on before you were able to actually use the console to play any media. And those terms usually state that the buyer can't fuck around and tinker with and re-write the software.

 

[vxicepickxv]

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it.

So, when you run out of gasoline, are you buying a new car? Do you change the tires, sea covers, or radio? After all if you don't put the right fuel in your car, you can damage it.

This is the exact same logic you used. Under the current legal system, it's also not a correct statement.

Cars do not follow the same rules as game systems do.

You just said they did. They're all technically hardware.

By trying to get a new president or two set, Sony is also throwing out two that already exist.

1)The iPhone jailbreak is already legal. This is a firmware change to a piece of hardware. This was already challenged and Apple lost. This means that the president is set against Sony.

2)With the civil suit in California instead of Jersey, they're trying to say that any individual is physically at two places at one time with this data work. This is both impossible and if it is seen as proper, then could set up for a frightening standard. It could mean that anyone using the internet, if they connect to a network in a country could be put on trial in the country, if what they're doing is illegal in that country.

 

[JDKJ]

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it.

So, when you run out of gasoline, are you buying a new car? Do you change the tires, sea covers, or radio? After all if you don't put the right fuel in your car, you can damage it.

This is the exact same logic you used. Under the current legal system, it's also not a correct statement.

Cars do not follow the same rules as game systems do.

You just said they did. They're all technically hardware.

By trying to get a new president or two set, Sony is also throwing out two that already exist.

1)The iPhone jailbreak is already legal. This is a firmware change to a piece of hardware. This was already challenged and Apple lost. This means that the president is set against Sony.

2)With the civil suit in California instead of Jersey, they're trying to say that any individual is physically at two places at one time with this data work. This is both impossible and if it is seen as proper, then could set up for a frightening standard. It could mean that anyone using the internet, if they connect to a network in a country could be put on trial in the country, if what they're doing is illegal in that country.

While it makes very little intuitive sense, it is possible for a defendant to be in two or more places at once and for personal jurisdiction to exist in both or all of those places. Take, for example, a case of defamation. I can sue an alleged defamer in either the place where they made the defamatory statement or the place where the defamatory statement was received, assuming those two places aren't the same. One is where the alleged injurious conduct occurred. The other is where the alleged injury to my reputation occurred. I can sue the defamer in either of those places and the courts of both places will have proper jurisdiction.

 

[Delusibeta]

As I said elsewhere, I can see this lawsuit going nowhere.

 

[Gormers1]

Phone "jailbreaks" really should be illegal because it causes all sorts of problems. Not the least of which is piracy.

A lot of things CAN cause all sorts of problems. That doesnt mean it should be illegal.

 

[Corkydog]

Out of uninformed curiosity, what exactly would one do with a hacked PS3? Like, what would change?

 

[imperialreign]

I think it's the "within the law" part of your statement that's the operative part, not the "FREEDOM" part. And, but for few and rare exceptions, circumvention of a mechanism intended to protect copyrights is, as a general rule, outlawed by the DMCA. How the courts will come down on the issue of circumvention for purposes that don't involve obvious piracy is no where near settled and remains to be seen but, at this point in time and until a body of clear legal precedent saying otherwise is established, circumvention for whatever purpose does amount to skating on thin ice.

Only problem with the DMCA is that it didn't overturn the older copyright acts of 1986 and 1982 which give users much more freedon with hardware and software that they own. TBH, many of the articles of the DMCA conflict with the older copyright acts in such a way that have lead to continuous headches in court.

All the DMCA is was a means for lawmakers to appease the corporate big wigs who've been crying foul over users breaking copyright protection in their hardware and software over the last decade., and the increase in media piracy. Ironically, the DMCA doesn't overturn the act of 1986 which grants users the right to make backup copies of any digital media they purchase, and to take whatever steps necessary to be able to make those backups, as long as the backup is made for archival purposes and not with intention to distribute, etc.





But, as it stands, regarding the act of '86 and the burden that should be on SONY's shoulders in this case:

The CFAA is primarily a criminal statute. However, in 1994 a civil suit provision was added that provides a private cause of action if a violation causes loss or damage, as those terms are defined in the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). To state a civil claim for violation of the CFAA, a plaintiff must allege

1. damage or loss;
2. caused by;
3.a violation of one of the substantive provisions set forth in § 1030(a); and
4. conduct involving one of the factors in § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(V).

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).
Persons found to be civilly liable for a CFAA violation can be responsible for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.
Moreover, an action brought under this section must be bought within two years of the date the act is complained or the date of the discovery of the damage. Additionally, no action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware. June 23, 2008) (must plead intent to cause harm, intent to transmit software code is not enough).

Note the key to the section in bold - they must prove that the user had the intent to cause harm or loss to their company.

 

[JDKJ]

I think it's the "within the law" part of your statement that's the operative part, not the "FREEDOM" part. And, but for few and rare exceptions, circumvention of a mechanism intended to protect copyrights is, as a general rule, outlawed by the DMCA. How the courts will come down on the issue of circumvention for purposes that don't involve obvious piracy is no where near settled and remains to be seen but, at this point in time and until a body of clear legal precedent saying otherwise is established, circumvention for whatever purpose does amount to skating on thin ice.

Only problem with the DMCA is that it didn't overturn the older copyright acts of 1986 and 1982 which give users much more freedon with hardware and software that they own. TBH, many of the articles of the DMCA conflict with the older copyright acts in such a way that have lead to continuous headches in court.

All the DMCA is was a means for lawmakers to appease the corporate big wigs who've been crying foul over users breaking copyright protection in their hardware and software over the last decade., and the increase in media piracy. Ironically, the DMCA doesn't overturn the act of 1986 which grants users the right to make backup copies of any digital media they purchase, and to take whatever steps necessary to be able to make those backups, as long as the backup is made for archival purposes and not with intention to distribute, etc.





But, as it stands, regarding the act of '86 and the burden that should be on SONY's shoulders in this case:

The CFAA is primarily a criminal statute. However, in 1994 a civil suit provision was added that provides a private cause of action if a violation causes loss or damage, as those terms are defined in the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). To state a civil claim for violation of the CFAA, a plaintiff must allege

1. damage or loss;
2. caused by;
3.a violation of one of the substantive provisions set forth in § 1030(a); and
4. conduct involving one of the factors in § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(V).

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).
Persons found to be civilly liable for a CFAA violation can be responsible for compensatory damages and injunctive or other equitable relief.
Moreover, an action brought under this section must be bought within two years of the date the act is complained or the date of the discovery of the damage. Additionally, no action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware. June 23, 2008) (must plead intent to cause harm, intent to transmit software code is not enough).

Note the key to the section in bold - they must prove that the user had the intent to cause harm or loss to their company.

You may have wandered off the reservation.

The DMCA's anti-circumvention statute is found not in Title 18 but, rather, in Title 17 (the very same Title where the copyright laws are found). I believe it is an amendment to the copyright laws -- or, at least, an addition thereto. In fact, the acronym stands for "Digital Millennium Copyright Act (emphasis on "copyright"). And I believe it provides for both civil and criminal prosecution. And it has a much more loosey-goosey intent requirement than the statute you're quoting. I think it requires only that the defendant acted with knowledge.

 

[RicoADF]

Ugh, there's that terms of service stuff again. I kinda groan when I hear a company reference it in legal proceedings. Terms of Service agreements are like the Bible; lots of people agree with them but very few people have actually read them.

Wasn't there a legal precedent set some time back that said you can't hold users to the ToS if they haven't read it yet have blindly agreed to it because it prevents them from playing the game? (or something to that effect) Frankly I don't think ToS should be viable in any legal proceedings since such a thing implies companies are able to write their own laws. (I may be over exaggerating out of rant inertia here)

I've read a few ToS and often they say all their conditions then put in it a line that basically says "your binded by these conditions unless local law says otherwise, in otherwords even the ToS admits that it doesn't have power over the law of your jurisdiction.

There was a once a time when it was legal to buy something and do whatever you wanted with it. Now we have to get permission. Please Sony, can we please please please do what we like to the things we buy?

This isn't an illogical request, considering that the hack doesn't apply directly to piracy. Perhaps computers should be banned because without them, piracy would be impossible.

Yes well thats what the case is about, can a hardware company control what you do with the hardware as long as it doesn't breach any laws. Altho the banning computers wouldn't stop piracy, we had that well before computers were even thought of.

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

I don't know what you would use it for, but there are legit reasons for them on the PS3, eg: restoring the add OS feature, that people will use it for. And say its for piracy all you want, but fact is most people that would have gotten a PS3 wouldn't bother with piracy, its higher price means most would have the $ to buy games and its easier and has less issues that way. Unlike an xbox or wii which are cheap enough to ruin to save a few $, or a PC where theres no issue at all to do it.
Reguardless, if someone wants to pirate, the USB key for the PS3 would be easier than this hack and the way people would go if they want to pirate a game, no company will ever stop people that refuse to pay for games/movies/music.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, it is very unlikely that people will ever stop that refus games/movies/music

Ugh, there's that terms of service stuff again. I kinda groan when I hear a company reference it in legal proceedings. Terms of Service agreements are like the Bible; lots of people agree with them but very few people have actually read them.

Wasn't there a legal precedent set some time back that said you can't hold users to the ToS if they haven't read it yet have blindly agreed to it because it prevents them from playing the game? (or something to that effect) Frankly I don't think ToS should be viable in any legal proceedings since such a thing implies companies are able to write their own laws. (I may be over exaggerating out of rant inertia here)

I've read a few ToS and often they say all their conditions then put in it a line that basically says "your binded by these conditions unless local law says otherwise, in otherwords even the ToS admits that it doesn't have power over the law of your jurisdiction.

There was a once a time when it was legal to buy something and do whatever you wanted with it. Now we have to get permission. Please Sony, can we please please please do what we like to the things we buy?

This isn't an illogical request, considering that the hack doesn't apply directly to piracy. Perhaps computers should be banned because without them, piracy would be impossible.

Yes well thats what the case is about, can a hardware company control what you do with the hardware as long as it doesn't breach any laws. Altho the banning computers wouldn't stop piracy, we had that well before computers were even thought of.

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

I don't know what you would use it for, but there are legit reasons for them on the PS3, eg: restoring the add OS feature, that people will use it for. And say its for piracy all you want, but fact is most people that would have gotten a PS3 wouldn't bother with piracy, its higher price means most would have the $ to buy games and its easier and has less issues that way. Unlike an xbox or wii which are cheap enough to ruin to save a few $, or a PC where theres no issue at all to do it.
Reguardless, if someone wants to pirate, the USB key for the PS3 would be easier than this hack and the way people would go if they want to pirate a game, no company will ever stop people that refuse to pay for games/movies/music.

Yes, it is highly unlikely that piracy will ever be eliminated entirely. There will always be some people who are willing to steal. But what's your point? That this kind of hacking shouldn't be prosecuted? That's like saying crack smoking will never be eliminated entirely so let's just sit back and let crack heads smoke crack all they want. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Mmmm piracy how I love you so. Good for the Earth too!

 

[RicoADF]

Yes, it is highly unlikely that piracy will ever be eliminated entirely. There will always be some people who are willing to steal. But what's your point? That this kind of hacking shouldn't be prosecuted? That's like saying crack smoking will never be eliminated entirely so let's just sit back and let crack heads smoke crack all they want. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me.

This kind of hack shouldn't be prosecuted, it's not done for piracy and thus they shouldn't be allowed to prosecute.
In theory the knowledge gained COULD be used to create a hack that does, but this one isn't setup for it (last I read), thus Sony has no right to stop the guy from playing around with his system as long as it isn't used for illegal purposes (piracy).