decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order - Updated
Monday, January 31 2011 @ 12:56 PM EST

Wired's David Kravetz reports that George Hotz's lawyers plan to ask US District Court Judge Susan Illston to reconsider her recent temporary restraining order and the requirement to surrender all his computers and peripherals and retrieve from the Internet any information he put there about hacking Sony's Playstation 3 to allow running unsigned code and to restore OtherOS functionality.

And there is an initial case management conference scheduled for April 22nd. April? It's January. So perhaps they are aware there will be a lot of motion practice before this case gets airborne. If any of you think it'd be a case you are interested in enough that you'd like to attend the court hearings, you can email me and I'll explain some basics.

Here is the clerk's notice:

01/28/2011 - 53 - CLERKS NOTICE Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/22/2011 02:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2011) (Entered: 01/28/2011)

And here's what Hotz's lawyer Stewart Kellar told Kravetz about their plans:
The judge’s Thursday ruling did not sit well with Hotz’ attorney, Stewart Kellar of San Francisco.

“The information sought at issue is less than 100 kilobytes of data. Mr. Hotz has terabytes of storage devices,” Kellar said in a Sunday telephone interview. “Impounding his computers, it’s like starting a forest fire to cut down a single tree.”

Within days, Kellar said he would petition U.S. District Judge Susan Illston to reconsider her ruling — which came in the form of a temporary restraining order requiring Hotz surrender the equipment next week. Hotz, he said, has already abided by Illston’s decision ordering him to remove the code from his website and YouTube.

That said, the code has spread like wildfire. Yet Illston appears to be ordering Hotz to make sure all the code is eliminated from the net.

The defendant, Illston ruled, “shall retrieve” code “which he has previously delivered or communicated.”

Kellar said that was impossible. “Mr. Hotz can’t retrieve the internet,” he said.

You can always ask a judge to reconsider an order, if you think he or she got something wrong. If you recall, IBM asked a judge to reconsider an order in SCO v. IBM once, and it worked out reasonably well for IBM. The judge adjusted the order. So it can happen. And while you can never predict what a judge will do, even if she fails to grant their request, it's still a chance to explain some technical things to her, since her expertise appears to be elsewhere. It's delicate surgery, because you essentially have to show a judge that she got something wrong. But to tell you the truth, judges are used to that and are reasonable souls, generally speaking, or learn to be, given the job's realities, and if Hotz's legal team can make a respectful but compelling case, this could work.

Maybe they could use Egypt as Exhibit A on the extreme difficulty in controlling the Internet. If an entire country can't shut it down or control its content, what hope does Hotz have of obeying her order as written, to "retrieve any Circumvention Devices or any information relating thereto which Hotz has previously delivered or communicated to the Defendants or any third parties"? I assume she means the Metldr key for PS3 that Hotz published when she writes "Circumvention Devices or any information relating thereto", but it's all over the Internet. And the judge's order asks Hotz to be like Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, trying to stop an overwhelming flood of waters by sweeping it with a broom. Sharing knowledge, for that matter, doesn't even depend on the Internet. Humans are just incredibly creative, sometimes in quirky ways, and there is no way that I know of to shut human brains down or to stop human beings from communicating with one another.

On the other hand, there is a law on the books. And judges are tasked with upholding the laws, whether they like them or not. That's my position too. But what would help would be if the judge would be a little more specific, by which I mean if she would detail with more precision exactly what she wants him to do and what would be enough to comply. And perhaps someone needs to think about how he can do anything involving the Internet if he has to turn over all his computer gear to Sony. Maybe they can try to cleanse the Internet. It might be a learning experience.

Update: Yo. I was kidding. But Sony is actually trying I guess. It sent a take-down notice to Github. It signed it "Truthfully." So it's a campaign. A campaign to cleanse the Internet.

Update 2: The word on the street about PS3 firmware v 3.56 is "rootkit", enabling Sony to execute code from the mother ship if they want to when users connect to the PlayStation Network. If so, that would make it possible to monitor who is using homebrew or cheating or whatever. Assuming this is so, and I don't consider it confirmed yet, I wonder if there is a notice about it in the terms or if it's like Sony's rootkit in 2005 on CDs that was hidden from customers. If anyone has access to the terms, I'd love to read them.


Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order - Updated | 497 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:06 PM EST
Please remember to change the title of your post from "Corrections
Thread" to a meaningful summary such as error->correction
ors/error/correction/ to make it easy to scan to see what corrections have been
reported already.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:07 PM EST
Please put the title of the News you Pick in the Tile box of your comment.
Include a clicky link to the article in HTML mode in the body of your comment
for the convenience of readers after the article has scrolled off the sidebar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:08 PM EST
Please stay off topic in these threads, but otherwise play as much as Groklaw's
comments policy and the Geeklog software allows. Remember to use HTML mode to
make your links clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:10 PM EST
We've broken the 2000 left to go milestone, if you count the ones that are
finished, submitted but in backlog, and promised but not yet submitted.

Members, head over to the Comes tracking page, claim an exhibit, and submit a
transcription. Non-member volunteers, Find an exhibit on the Comes Exhibit by
Number pages that isn't done yet.

Please transcribe using simple HTML markup, such as using a <p> to mark a
paragraph break without putting a <br> on every line just because the
document has line breaks there, unless the formatting is essential to the
content such as with email headers.

Submit the transcription in Plain Old Text mode, but with the HTML markup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canonical/On Topic Threads start here
Authored by: jonathon on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:12 PM EST
Threads that relate to Hotz requesting a judicial review of the TRO go here. Or
perhaps not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 01:20 PM EST
It seems to me that the first people that Hotz needs to request to remove the
material is SONY. If Hotz is unable to get Sony to remove the data (and Sony has
legal reason to keep the information), how can he be held responsible to remove
it from the rest of the web?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judges are unsophisticated.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 02:44 PM EST

It appears, as the years go by, that our judges are mired in the 19th century. But even then, it wasn't possible for a publisher to retrieve all the papers printed. Why should it be possible now?

Also Judge Illiston, why stop at his computers? It's his brain that did the work, why not impound that too?

The real problem is the DMCA. Written by companies, it creates more problems then it solved. Unfortunately, until the mean birthdate of congress reached is about 1985, no one is going to revisit that mess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Hotz appeal the Jurisdiction Issue?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 02:45 PM EST
I was wondering if Hotz can appeal the issue of Jurisdiction now, or must he
wait until the case is over.

That seems a tremendous waste of resources.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: mexaly on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 02:59 PM EST
"How can I get it back when it's all over the internet," would be
something Counsel for Hotz would have to think about before entering it into the
record, eh?

Could come up later in the damages chapter.

IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
My thanks go out to PJ and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So what happens if he says "No."?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 03:27 PM EST
Doesn't he live on the east coast, which puts him out of the
jurisdiction of SF, right?

Assuming his lawyer(s) don't convince the judge that the
request to seize his computers/PS3, can't he just give them
a polite, "No thanks!"?

If he did that, what sort of repercussions are there?
Warrant, jail, what?

This sort of legal abuse is what really irks me about our
judicial system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whose code?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 03:40 PM EST
>>Sony, which is seeking unspecified monetary damages, has just released
a firmware update designed to nullify Hotz’ code.<< (Wired article)

Translation: Sony [...] has just added another layer of obscurity to its
so-called security. This futile gesture was swept aside by other hackers
and the new "keys" published within 24 hours, not by Hotz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 03:44 PM EST

Looks like DeCSS all over again.

That reminded me of Dave Touretzky's Gallery of CSS Descramblers, so I went along to his homepage at and what should I find at the top of his section on "The DMCA and other First Amendment Issues"? Well, take a look.

delta alpha victor echo at foxtrot echo november dash november echo tango dot delta echo

I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 1/27/2011 Update - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 03:57 PM EST
    • 1/31/2011 Update - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 04:26 PM EST
      • 1/31/2011 Update - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 04:50 PM EST
Question On Functional Downgrades
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 03:53 PM EST
Apologies if this has been asked before.

Suppose I bought a Sony PS/3 when it was capable of hosting alternative
operating systems. I may or may not have got around to uploading say Puppy Dog
Linux on it, but I absolutely planned to do so.

In fact, this ability to run GNU/Linux was critical to my decision to purchase.

Now, along comes Sony, after I have bought and paid for the PS/3, and by means
of a remote update they remove the ability for me to host a different OS on the
PS/3 hardware.

I would have to try and find some of the original literature supplied with the
platform, so I am not sure if the modified version is no longer capable of
functioning "as sold", but I am interested in asking about the legal
ramifications - for Sony - of "downgrading" the technical capabilities
of a product that has already been purchased.

Consider a variation on this theme. Imagine you had purchase a tablet computing
device and part of your selection process involved finding the model with the
fastest CPU because you had written an app that was time-sensitive. Then,
without warning, the vendor of the tablet issued a patch which clocked down the
CPU in your appliance to run at only 75% of it's previous speed. Or limited it
to accept a maximum of 2Gb flash cards instead of anything larger.

What legal issues does this raise? If the device is no longer "sold as
seen", or "as advertised", or "as sold", does the
purchaser have a right to return the device for a refund?

If the functionality I describe was or was not present at point of sale, this
would be a cut-and-dried case and easy to resolve. But it's more complex than
that. Can you purchase a device with a "reasonable expectation" that
functionality provided at the time of purchase will be maintained (perhaps
unless it is found to be harmful to the safety or operational longevity of the
device, for example).

Final bonus question: could the defendant in this case potentially counter-sue
Sony, over this precise point about "subsequently disabled
functionality"? And, if so, would such a counter-claim be eligible for
class-action status?

I ask the last part of this because I am interested to consider how a robust
defense could be structured in the instant example...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The judge’s Thursday ruling did not sit well with Hotz’ attorney...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 06:24 PM EST

Apparently, Mr. Hotz' attorney has already appealed the Judge's decision up
to the court of the press. The reporter has detected that the decision did not

"sit well" with the attorney. One wonders how all this
"sits" with the Judge. It
is not likely to "sit well" for a number of reasons.

Why would the lawyer speak to the reporter with attribution? When a lawyer
speaks to the press, he loses control. The reporter can write it up any way he

wants. The reporter can even take the opponent's perspective. The reporter
thinks in headlines and wants the first page. He will take the most
controversial angle, usually David's versus Goliath. The lawyer may also be
making up in publicity for what is not coming out of Hotz's not-so-deep

If the lawyer wants to educate and persuade the judge, outing this supposed
ignorance of the net in public will offend more than teach. The Judge is
tenured for life and doesn't mind being wrong even at Hotz' expense. The
lawyer may also have despaired of getting through. He is preparing for the
appeal round.

He promises a filing. He already has someone's special scrutiny.



[ Reply to This | # ]

What Hotz *must* surrender, according to the TRO
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM EST
Am I wrong, or can:

“any and all computer hardware and peripherals containing
circumvention devices, technologies, programs, parts
thereof, or other unlawful material, including but not
limited to code and software, hard disc drives, computer
software, inventory of CD-ROMS, computer diskettes, or other
material containing circumvention devices, technologies,
programs, parts thereof, or other unlawful material.”

...become 'this USB thumb drive (1GB), which is the only one
containing any material which directly or indirectly relates
to this Order'.

Surely he's not been ordered to surrender any and all
computer equipment, drives, or other material he owns, only
those containing circumvention devices, etc...

[ Reply to This | # ]

TRO to Seize Sony's IT Infrastructure
Authored by: jbb on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 10:35 PM EST
I would like to see team geohot ask this judge for a TRO to impound all of Sony's IT Infrastructure to prevent them from further harming PS3's that belong to people other than Sony. Unlike geohot, who AFAIK has never even attempted to attack a machine that he does not own, Sony has a sordid history of flagrantly violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act an estimated 500,000 times causing real damage to machine and networks they didn't own.

Sony's current lawsuit demonstrates that they have not learned their lesson from their rootkit fiasco. They have still not grasped the simple concept that other people's computers and consoles belong to ... other people. Sony does not have the right to take over or disable other people's computers in order to protect their precccious IP from unsubstantiated and completely hypothetical infringement. There are proper legal channels to take care of that sort of thing but once again Sony has decided to take the law into their own hands by pushing out a firmware update to disable the OtherOS feature on hardware they do not own.

Sony then had the gall to sue geohot for doing nothing more than telling others how to fix their own hardware that Sony broke! The court system totally let down the American public by giving Sony a slap on the wrist for their rootkit instead of civil penalties of $50,000,000,000 (50 billion dollars) which is what they would have owed if they were charged the maximum penalty of $100,000 per violation. Please don't let us all down again.

[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Freedom of Speech?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 31 2011 @ 11:31 PM EST
It would seem to me that the First Amendment of the Constitution would trump a law written by Congress in support of copyright. Restraint on my Hotz's right to free speech seem to me more important than Sony's right to make money. This is not an issue of threat to life or limb, after all. Sony just doesn't like Mr. Hotz "telling its secret."

Why are Sony's rights more important than Mr. Hotz?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hotz Afirmitive Defenses.
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 03:00 AM EST
I think there should be a thread for people to list possible affirmative defense

I have several, any of which could be wrong.

-- Reverse Engineering is permitted by law, particularly when there is no other
means to get a device you purchased to work. I don't remember the citations.
Hotz's particular reverse engineering effort is a minimum to enable/re-enable
the "Other OS" feature that SEC stole away from their customer base in
a recent update.

-- Hotz's material has not yet been, and can not singularly be used to violate
the copyright of any protected work. It allows non-SEC code to run as the
operating system of the PS3 hardware. The distance between that act and
implementing a complete SEC compliant OS to actually run an SEC or SECA game
dwarfs the opening of the boot loader by about five orders of magnitude in code,
and maybe eight or nine in human effort. So Hotz's code is not a
"circumvention device" because it doesn't circumvent a protection
measure on any copyright item. It does circumvent the _hardware_ access
restrictions implemented in the boot loader, but _hardware_ is not in the realm
of copyright protection.

-- The PS3 and its firmware is made by SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.), a
Japanese corporation. Plaintiff is SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment LLC.), a US
corporation with headquarters offices in California (but I cannot seem to figure
out what state they are incorporated in). So SCEA is a third party to any
interest SCE has in Hotz's reverse engineering of their boot loader. Regardless,
since SCEA is not the actual injured party (they are a wholly owned subsidiary
of same) the issues of both venue and standing are hardly clear.

-- In naming Hotz's efforts a "circumvention device" they have not
named _any_ copyright item who's "effective copy protection mechanism"
is/was actually circumvented. So far there has been no declaration of harm that
comes under any copyright title (Hotz's reverse engineering efforts copy
nothing, and grant a PS3's owner access to the PS3 hardware allowing them to
load _their_ _own_ software, as opposed to any protected software.) While one
could envision _future_ _actors_ to create software that would be effective
circumvention, and maybe then use this reverse engineering effort to load that
software, those are not Hotz's actions. That would be a bit like suing the maker
of a die-cut machine because a future actor _may_ take and use an instance of
that machine to die-cut the blank of a knife that yet another person may then
buy and use to sab someone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Event Horizon
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 04:17 AM EST
Within the system: It makes sense how Sony and its lawyers act.

But sometimes you have to shift your point of view to get the whole picture.

Let us think about what Sony is really asking.

They like everyone to forget the metldr key. They can use Google to detect it on
the websites and use their lawyers worldwide to siege it. Maybe this will work.
And those random numbers and letters are hard to remember. So very little will
actually remember those keys for a long period.

For those with a photographic memory or for those people who have the knowledge
on how to get the keys, things are different. If Sony succeeds, those people
have to undergo brain surgery that results in a damaged personality. And I fear
that Sony will ask for that and will get a judgment for it. The judge have to
obey the law, the DMCA.

What Sony isn't able to control: The underground. There is no way to control
sd-cards with the metldr key on it, changing hands. There is no
"google" for that. There is no control of USB-Sticks to alter the PS3s
being traded on a black market.

In fact: Sony is feating this underground market. You can't get a USB-Stick
legally to boot Linux on your PS3. And when you go underground you will get one
with tons of hacked games. Because that is their PR and market strategy:
Offering more games for less. And if you already crossed the line and conducted
a crime, for god sake, get the most out of it.

By hunting the metldr key out of the internet, Sony takes every step that is
needed to create a black market for mod-USB-Sticks.

Sony might be perfectly suited in the legal system. But it is another world out
there. Sony might give in or escalate. Guess what they will do?

And once again. This isn't about black market. As Sony does everything that
ensures that a black market comes to existence. You need a forbidden good. What
they fight is the right of the user to do what he likes. Freedom of choice.
Nothing else. What Sony tries to show and to prevail: We own you. Do as we say.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 07:00 AM EST
A hundred kilobytes of data.

Did you ever get one of those chain email with megabytes of cute animal pictures
in it. With hundreds of forwarded emails on the list, and a little notice on the

If you are not the intended recipient please delete this email and notify the

Does anyone seem to care that those photos may be copyrighted material?

You have email address tracings on those. Would you like to track down
everyone and ask them to please delete your copyrighted material from their

How would you ever catch up to the end of the chain?

Where does the law meet the world?

[ Reply to This | # ]

To add another twist to this...
Authored by: servies on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 07:36 AM EST
I don't see it mentioned here yet... but apparantly the new firmware for the PS3 contains a rootkit.
Sony is forever out of the picture for me...

[ Reply to This | # ]

break for 3.56 already claimed
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 05:02 PM EST

Sony announced the release of Version 3.56 on Wednesday. That same day, game
console hacker Youness Alaoui, aka KaKaRoToKS, tweeted that he had released the
tools to unpack the files, allowing him to uncover the new version's signing
Apparently those new keys were on GitHub which received a take down notice for
them and complied.

Aside from the already noted root code execution path sony dropped into the
patch ::
Version 3.56 also introduces a significantly re-engineered private encryption
key that makes it next to impossible to roll back the update. PS3 users with
older firmware are required to update if they want to continue using the
PlayStation Network.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hotz Will Ask Judge to Reconsider TRO Order - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 01 2011 @ 10:15 PM EST
This might have been asked and answered, but if that's the case, I apologize.

What about "first sale"? I buy a PlayStation game console second hand
and in used condition, why am I bound by any user or purchaser agreement? Maybe
PJ could answer that question, but in my own personal experience with things
encumbered by first sale agreements, I have seen few to none that are
enforceable on subsequent sales. I call it the gun sale scenario. Buy it new and
deal with records, tax and waiting, buy it used and walk away with it. If I buy
the PS3 used, why can't I do whatever I want with it? I agreed to nothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The GPL in court
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 08:28 AM EST
Why no coverage, PJ?

01/31/2011 163 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Erik
Andersen, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc..(Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered:
01/31/2011 164 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 163 MOTION for Preliminary
Injunction.. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Software Freedom Conservancy,
Inc.. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
01/31/2011 165 DECLARATION of Erik Andersen in Support re: 163 MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Ravicher, Daniel)
(Entered: 01/31/2011)
01/31/2011 166 DECLARATION of Bradley M. Kuhn in Support re: 163 MOTION for
Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Erik Andersen, Software Freedom
Conservancy, Inc.. (Ravicher, Daniel) (Entered: 01/31/2011)

[ Reply to This | # ]

3.56 update terms
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 09:51 AM EST
Here is the link to manually download the 3.56. This appears to be the method that geohot mentions in his deposition of downloading the update without logging on the the playstation network.
On that page is a link to the eula

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 3.56 update terms - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 11:05 AM EST
How 'legal' are Sony's ever changing terms of use anyway?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 11:22 AM EST
This is what I've been wondering after the latest news about the 'rootkit'.

Every update of my PS3 I did so far came with the requirement to agree to new
licensing terms. These terms are basically forced upon you one-sided.

Yes you can refuse the terms of the firmware update, but you lose PSN and the
ability to play any game offline that is released after this update. The last is
because games demand force the latest update at the time of their release on you
as a minimum.

So if Sony puts something in their terms you don;t agree to, you either put up
with it against your will, or you have a very expensive paperweight. For my own
country (The Netherlands) I remember some news in the past where some license
agreements were judged invalid, because the terms were such that no one would
enter into such a license agreement if they had a choice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copyright on What?
Authored by: FreeChief on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 11:24 AM EST
I asked this question before, in a subthread of a thread under a different article, and PJ answered:
The issue with the DMCA isn't copying. It's access, specifically access to protected copyrighted works. Here it is so you can read it, Title 17, Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems.
but I am slow; I still don't get it. The law says (sec 1201,a,1,A):
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
so the DMCA is a Copyright act. It is illegal to circumvent a technological measure that controls access to a protected work.

So GeoHotz has been accused of circumventing a technological measure, but what is the protected work?

It is perfectly legal, though stupid, to circumvent a technological measure that prevents you from, say, plugging your USB drive in backwards.

It is my understanding that GeoHotz has discovered a crypto key that allows him to load Linux into the Sony-made device. Sony has no copyright in Linux. Ths crypto key does not protect Sony's code from being accessed.

It is as though he had been accused of a copyright violation for writing notes in the margin of a book. The text of the book may be protected by copyright, but that doesn't make it illegal to write in the margins. If the book dealer decides that it does not want you to write in the margin, and uses special paper that does not hold ink it is still not a copyright violation if you "circumvent" this by using crayon.

My question remains. It seems that GeoHotz has circumvented a technological measure, but so what? In what sense does this crypto control access to anything on which Sony has copyright?

 — Programmer in Chief

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remote execution is always problematic
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 04:35 PM EST
Having a remote connection to the PS3 Hypervisor would be a ripe target for malicious hackers to circumvent the machine or install malicious code for nefarious deeds. Since Sony 'put' that back door into the machine, and most likely without consent of the user, they would be just as liable for security issues as they were for the CD Rootkit security flaws that got them in such hot water before.

I for one would love the chance to disassemble that BIOS update to see what security flaws they introduced in it. While IANAL I believe it would be permissible to do so as long as its in the security interests of the general public, but announcing any kind of discovered flaw would likely get one sued no matter how well it was presented, or what channels one went through to ensure that it gets fixed. No back door is ever going to be 100% safe, and by my very general knowledge of hypervisors I would guess there are at least two significant flaws waiting to be attacked, just from that one 'feature' they added.

DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple rejects Sony App from iPhone
Authored by: MrCharon on Wednesday, February 02 2011 @ 04:46 PM EST

Apple rejects Sony App from iPhone

*wait wait, I've got to stop laughing*.

I wonder how Sony feels about having the hardware vendor tell them what they can and can't do with a platform. Maybe they should make there app avaiable to jailbroken iPhones.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )