decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
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

Username:

Password:

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party - Updated
Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:23 AM EST

This will make a lot of you feel better. The parties have come up with a stipulation in Sony Computer Entertainment American v. Hotz regarding what Hotz must do about handing over his computers. The new Preliminary Injunction [PDF] now says that he is to turn his materials over to a "neutral" third party, not to SCEA's lawyers, and after the neutral party combs through them, it all is returned to Hotz. All but whatever they "segregate" out of them. He won't get that back until the end of the litigation, should he prevail, which this court at least currently thinks is less likely than that Sony will. There will be a hearing on Hotz's motion to dismiss on April 8, 2011.

Here's the Stipulation and the exhibit with the terms of the preliminary injunction and the computer hand-over:

02/17/2011 - 83 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ODER RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS by Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Preliminary Injunction and Hearing on Motion to Dismiss)(Gaudreau, Holly) (Filed on 2/17/2011) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

Here's the meat of the stipulation:
1. The Preliminary Injunction shall be entered in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto.

2. SCEA shall file its Opposition to Defendant Hotzís Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2011;

3. Defendant Hotz shall file his Reply, if any, on March 25, 2011.

4. The hearing on Defendant Hotzís Motion to Dismiss shall be held on April 8, 2011.

And here's what the preliminary injunction reads like now, from the exhibit:
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees, attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be enjoined from:

1. Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any circumvention technology, products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, components or part thereof, including but not limited to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm ("ECDSA") Keys, encryption and/or decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program, Signing Tools, 3.55 Firmware Jailbreak, root keys, and/or any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to and/or copying of the PS3 System and/or enable compatibility of unauthorized copies of other copyrighted works with the PS3 System (hereinafter, "Circumvention Devices").

2. Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention Devices.

3. Engaging in acts of circumvention of TPMs in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.

4. Engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PlayStation 2 Network ("PSN") in order to obtain, access, or transmit any program, code, information or command therein.

5. Publishing, posting, or distributing any information, code, program, instructions, video, or other material obtained by circumventing TPMs in the PS3 System or by engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PSN.

6. Assisting, facilitating or encouraging others to engage in the conduct set forth above in 1-5.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hotz, his officers, employees, attorneys or representatives, and any and all other persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, with notice of this Order, shall preserve, and not destroy, erase, delete, dispose of, or alter any documents or records, in whatever format, including electronic documents, computer files, computer discs and drives, that relate to, reflect, record, or contain any information regarding the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, advertising, purchase, sale, offer to sell, trafficking, import, export, installation, payment, storage, and/or shipment of any and all of the Circumvention Devices, or any communications with any party concerning the manufacture, distribution, promotion, marketing, advertising, purchase, sale, offer to sell, trafficking, import, export, installation payment, storage, and/or shipment of any and all of the Circumvention Devices.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hotz is required to deliver his computers, hard drives, CD-roms, DVDs, USB sticks, and any other storage devices on which any Circumvention Devices are stored (but not his Sony PS3 consoles) to a third party neutral selected by the parties for the purpose of isolating, segregating and/or removing the information on those devices related to Defendant Hotz's circumvention of the TPMs in the PS3 System. Defendant Hotz's devices shall be promptly returned to him after the information has been segregated and removed from those devices. The logistics and protocol for this impoundment shall be worked out by the parties with Magistrate Judge Spero.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the $10,000.00 posted by SCEA on January 27, 2011 as security for the Court's issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order shall suffice for this Preliminary Injunction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of this case unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties or ordered by the Court.

So it won't be Sony pawing through his stuff. The $10,000 posted by Sony is for the purpose of making Hotz whole at the end if he wins. The court knows at this early point only that it believes Sony will win from what it currently knows, but more could happen.

One thing that will definitely happen is the hearing on the Hotz motion to dismiss. If that were to be granted, then it's back to Go and Sony will then have to file in New Jersey, where Hotz actually resides.

Please note that paragraphs 2, 5 and 6 technically apply to Hotz and those acting "in privity" with him, but in real life apply to the world, including you and me, so please don't post any links to anything "selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking" in what the court would view as "circumvention devices", etc. The language is very broad, and includes not "publishing, posting, or distributing any information, code, program, instructions, video, or other material obtained by circumventing TPMs in the PS3 System or by engaging in unauthorized access to the PS3 System or the PSN" and not "assisting, facilitating or encouraging others to engage in" anything listed in the five paragraphs 1-5.

I want to report on the case, not become part of it. Thanks for being extra careful. You see how Sony litigates, so if in doubt, please don't.

Update: More filings:

02/18/2011 - 84 - ORDER ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CONTINUING MOTION. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/18/2011 - Set/Reset Deadlines as to 57 MOTION to Dismiss FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER VENUE. Motion Hearing set for 4/8/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

So the judge signed the stipulated order, and the hearing on Hotz's motion to dismiss has been reset for April 8 at 9 AM.

  


Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party - Updated | 288 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Please place corrections here ...
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:37 AM EST

The commenter deleted his comment

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic Comments
Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM EST
On topic comments frowned up on in this section.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Collection Come Here
Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:39 AM EST
Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Comments
Authored by: alanjshea on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST
Make the comment title the newspick title, and include a link to the original
article since they scrolls off rather quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party
Authored by: rocky on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:46 AM EST
I'm glad it worked out this way, but really, shouldn't the order have been
written this way from the beginning? The point of civil cases is that the
parties are adversarial, which means neither can trust the other. For any kind
of handing over materials to be forensically examined, I would think the default
from the court would HAVE to be for this to be done by a third party because an
adversarial party doing their own forensic investigation would always be under
suspicion of planting something or fudging the evidence. It just seems really
odd to me that any judge would show such favoritism to any party to say,
"Yeah, you can examine the other party's stuff, and then I'll just believe
whatever incriminating evidence you say you found on it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can I wear the T-Shirt? N/T
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:53 AM EST
bjd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chilling effect, what chilling effect
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:56 AM EST
"You see how Sony litigates, so if in doubt, please don't."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unauthorized access
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM EST
The order includes:
... any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to and/or copying of the PS3 System ...
1. What technologies are these?
2. What is unauthorized access?
3. Who mandates what access is unauthorized?
4. Without this knowledge, how can anyone comply with the order?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:18 PM EST
So Hotz is required to preserve all information relating the case, whilst also
required to hand over his hardware to a third party who are expected to remove
(at least some of) this same information.

I'm sure there will be precedence for this. So how does he answer discovery with
regard to the deleted information? How does he prepare a defense that may rely
on the deleted information? For example if he is accused of revealing an
encryption key, can he defend himself by claiming that others had already
revealed the key, if he can't prove it from his records?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chair-Throw Posts here ...
Authored by: nsomos on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 12:28 PM EST
Gather your comments about propelled seating appliances here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Third Party Neutral suggestion
Authored by: om1er on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM EST
For the Third Party Neutral, may I suggest the parties consider the eminent Marc
Rochkind?

---
March 23, 2010 - Judgement day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"but not his Sony PS3 consoles"
Authored by: SL on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 01:53 PM EST
It appears that Sony does not consider a PS3 to be either a "computer"
or a "storage device" but a "console" (whatever that is). By
excepting the PS3's that Hotz may posess they seem to have left Hotz with any
copies of alleged "circumvention devices" that may be stored on said
"consoles". In fact the order does not seem to preclude copying data
FROM existing storage devices ONTO a PS3 prior to turning over the storage
devices as long as they remain in the posession of Hotz since that would not
"destroy, erase, delete, dispose of, or alter" any data. Nor would
that action "transmit", "publish, post or distribute"
anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So that is how much trust you have in the American Court system PJ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM EST
That you are afraid of people posting some Prime Numbers ...
very sad.

It doesnt help if courts sort this out years from now the
damage is done now, and its not done to sony.

(Sorry but this makes me at least 100 times more angry than
all the RIAA stuff that was happening the last years, and
the worst part of it is that people told your lawmakers
befarehand that THIS would happen ... stupid :( )

BTW: would we be allowed to link to
http://primes.utm.edu/lists/? Ups to late ... now what about
indexing these lists? What is needed to make clear just HOW
wrong this is. Why are you afraid of this nonsense ...

Why are you looking away?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This should be standard procedure
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 03:36 PM EST
I'm glad to see that they're doing this in a more sensible way. I just wish
they'd done this from the start.

I wonder what Sony is going to do about all those news sites where people have
linked to the keys and whatnot, though? I've seen dozens where people linked to
various things that contain the key. Also, there's the minor fact that Sony
itself published part of some of those keys in court documents. Can people
still link to those?

Or will Hotz end up getting blamed for what everyone else did?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I *do* feel better
Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:00 PM EST
This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me that limits the potential harm to either party. If the neutral third party does limit their segregation to PS3 related activities then I think it's reasonable.

It had seemed to me that Sony was trying to pull a fast-one and get their hands directly on geohot's equipment so they could go deep diving to find something else, perhaps totally unrelated, to persecute him with. I don't doubt for an instant that this was Lord Sony's intent but I'm relieved to hear that their nasty plan was foiled.

---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stipulation: Hotz to Turn Over Computers to Neutral Third Party
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:25 PM EST
If I am reading this correctly, Hotz can't comply with the order.

Part 1: Destroy any and all information related to the keys anywhere you can.

Part 2: Deliver your computer unaltered to this third party to copy stuff.

If he deletes the key first, he violates part 2. If he delivers it as is, and
the third
party makes yet another copy, he violates part 1.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Banned from perfoming LEGAL acts? This judge is STILL wrong!
Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 04:27 PM EST
Item 2 of the TRO bans him from doing acts that have been declared as legal:
jailbreaking phones.

The judge still don't get it right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Finally some sense
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 05:08 PM EST
This court/judge has been awefully one-sided thus far.. a little _too_ one
sided if you ask me, when there seemed to be some pretty basic facts against
sony - yet sony kept receiving the handout.

If the third-party decision did not come about I would be forced to start using
some stronger language and suggest some improprietary for that would seem to be
the only way to describe it - short of stupidity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • so far - Authored by: reiisi on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 07:40 PM EST
Where's the presumption of innocence gone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM EST
The language/tone of the TRO infers that Hotz's actions have been already been
determined as unlawful. The broadness of the restrictions say loudly that the
judge already believes Hotz is using all his technology/skill to circumvent
copyright on all manner of things. It's an incredible imposition placed on a
person who has barely started the legal process surrounding SECA's claims.

Charles from Oz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

List of legal activities this order keeps geohot from doing
Authored by: jbb on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 09:26 PM EST
As whoever57 noted above, item two of the preliminary injunction prohibits geohot from engaging in otherwise-legal activities. I thought it would be fun to compile a list of some of the activities he can no longer do just to point out the absurdity of this part of the order. I believe Lord Sony is purposely trying to confuse the judge into assuming that most, if not all, circumvention devices are illegal. The truth is that the vast majority of circumvention devices are perfectly legal.

This email highlights two of the phrases in the DMCA that Lord Sony wants this judge to ignore. They succeeded in getting the judge to overlook these phrases (and more) in this part of her order. The other thing that got overlooked was the part of that says the device has to circumvent something that is protecting a right of a copyright owner under the DMCA.

So you don't have to scroll up to see what I'm talking about here is the overbroad item:

2. Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention Devices.
The phrase "any Circumvention Devices" covers a lot of territory, most of which is otherwise completely legal. Perhaps Lord Sony and/or the judge were just using some sort of legal shorthand where "Circumvention Devices" actually means "Circumvention Devices that were outlawed by the DMCA". But since other items in the list explicitly specify the PS3, the lack of specificity in this item must have been intentional (or a horrendous oversight, or both).

Please don't post links or information that could get PJ in trouble due to this ridiculous order. For example, whoever57 already mentioned that this covers iPhone jailbreaking which, due to the Librarian of Congress exemption, is perfectly legal. But since whoever57 didn't give detailed information about iPhone jailbreaking, I don't think that post will get PJ into trouble.

I'll add that geohot is now prohibited from buying or selling Bic pens since they can be used to circumvent a Kryptonite bicycle lock.

---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Things Hotz never did...
Authored by: BitOBear on Friday, February 18 2011 @ 11:47 PM EST
(Item 4) I am pretty sure he authorized himself to access his own PS3 System. [I
notice that they stopped calling it the PlayStation 3 Computer and now its a
"system".] And since they added "any command therein" he
can't even turn the thing off now.

(item 3) Mr Hotz never "circumvention of TPMs in the PS3 System to access,
obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works" He obtained and accessed
the copyrighted works entirely without "circumventing" any
"TPM". He bought or was gifted the PS/3 and he downloaded the firmware
from some approved venue, whatever that may be, and none of that circumvented a
thing.

(whole case) Publishing the key doesn't "circumvent" anything, it
allows one to operate the thing as designed and implemented. Possessing the key
doesn't allow grater access to any copyrighted work than was provided by SCEA et
al. Its not like a PS3 game or firmware loads differently or faster if you have
the key in your wallet, and there is no place to "insert the key" in
the normal access of any work copyrighted by SCEA or any affiliate.

Use of the key may allow "unauthorized [BY SCEA]" loading of code into
a PlayStation 3 Computer, by the owners of said computer, but that action is not
enjoined by the TRO at all.

And using the key in that manner doesn't _circumvent_ the loader, it _fully_ and
_normally_ uses the loader in place (e.g. not copied, accessed, transcribed, nor
any other verb but "to use") exactly as implemented by non-SCEA Sony.

As near as I can tell from the technical descriptions there are _no_ legally
compliant "TPM"s in the PlayStation at all. All the _measures_
implemented prevent programs from accessing hardware, but _none_ of the measures
prevent hardware from accessing programs.

That is the PS3 can (and indeed _must_) read the code it will not load, but it
will not load the disks it does not like.

Since, by definition, the hardware and firmware always likes the code provided
by SCEA et al, the only thing that publishing the key does is "trick"
the hardware into "liking" the code _not_ _provided_ by SCEA.

SCEA has no interest or domain over code the do not provide.

Mr. Hotz actions _never_ changed or change the chain of exclusion that keeps
non-sony code off of your hardware.

It's like prosecuting someone for "illegal use of a firearm" because
they bought an old empty holster and filled it with decorative glass. That is,
there was never a gun involved at all, but there are enough gun-words floating
around to confuse the natives.

So I'll say it again. _Nothing_ Hotz did here changes the way the PS3 does or
does not load any single piece of PS3 software. Not anywhere. Not ever.

That's not a "fine distinction" it is the meat of the law and the
case.

Hotz' lawyers need to keep hammering on one simple question: what piece of SCEA
et al software can now be run on the PS3, that could not previously be run on
the PS3, because of Mr. Hotz action?

Answer: None.

Followup: What piece of SCEA et al software can now be run on a non-PS3 computer
that could not previously be run on a non-PS3 computer because of Mr. Hotz
action?

Answer: None.

Not one single other thing mentioned by anyone is material to the question of
whether Mr. Hotz actions are actionable under copyright law.

All the other words are smokescreen and an unhappy corporation that got caught
engaging in trying to control hardware they do not own, again, just like with
the root-kit.

IMHO of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unauthorised Sony jokes, here.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 02:47 AM EST
Don't worry, they are not covered by the injunction.

Don't play games, though!

---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Yes, they hit the ground. The lawyers are now taking them to the centre of
the Earth. The 'centre of the Earth' is irony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the list of banned items extend beyond PS3 world?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 04:20 AM EST
In the TRO accepted by GeoHot apparrently on behalf of the world, does the list
of banned items extend to all items fitting the words, or just such items
specifically adapted for PS3 work?

For instance are we all banned from trafficing in generic ECDSA code or generic
signing tools just because such generic tools CAN potentially be used against a
PS3?

That would be very bad indeed as they have then just outlawed major areas of
technology required in the modern world and included by default in all current
general purpose operating systems.

I am not encouraging anything here, nor linking, IANAL, TINLA

[ Reply to This | # ]

modern witch hunting
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 11:03 AM EST
Sony tries to burn witches. Please your Honor, don't let them turn you over to
take your part.

It really is witch hunting. George Hotz had done something. Something that looks
to most people, even educated people, like magic. Even those managers at Sony
still do believe their system is safe and Hotz had used some magic. They asked
the court to find the magic and destroy it. And everything is alright. Is it?

This lawsuit is about education, knowledge, intelligence and a gifted mind. How
could Sony go along and believe, that Hotz can't do this again, isn't able any
more? Because he used magic that will be found and destroyed? He can, because he
is well educated, smart and able to. Even if the court doesn't allow him to do
it again, he can teach other people the basics and light the way. This is the
beginning, because it is not about magic but knowledge.

There is only one way to save some time for Sony: Lobotomize Hotz. Will the
court do that? Sony: You can't un-think knowledge.

There are some people at Sony, who know that the crypto system isn't safe 100%.
That there is always a chance to break it. Guess the private key, i.e. But the
Sony manager are not able to understand that. They need a 100% bullet proofed
secure system and took the best they can get. And believed in it. It looks like
they forgotten the most primitive basics: Revoke keys.

This case is witch hunting. Because Sony and the people who made the DMCA
believed that there are ways that are 100% bullet proofed. They are wrong. They
believe that cracking them is witchcraft. They are wrong. They believe hunting
the witches will cure the world. They are wrong.

The sad thing: Looks like Hotz can choose to swim and get burned to ashes or to
drown.

Please, your Honor. Stay sane.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Difference between Hotz/PS3 and DeCSS
Authored by: pem on Saturday, February 19 2011 @ 03:50 PM EST
Here's the difference between this jailbreak and DeCSS.

DVD players never prohibited the playing of unencrypted content. DVD player manufacturers go out of their way to support different physical formats (DVD+/-R, etc.) and different content formats (MP3, AVI, WMV, etc.).

Users can and always have been able to author their own DVDs (though before the writable DVDs, that required specialized equipment, but didn't require onerous NDAs or licensing or royalty payments).

CSS makes it difficult for an amateur to copy or otherwise access an encrypted DVD in a fashion unauthorized by the copyright holder. It is a restriction that makes fair use difficult, to be sure, but it allows restrictions on licensees' actual copyrighted DVD content. It does not allow those licensees to restrict my ability to play non-encrypted DVDs which I create or which I buy or legitimately copy. So DVD Jon's hack provided unauthorized access to DVDs, but not to the player, because Joe Blow user could already access the capabilities of the player for unlicensed/unprotected content!

Consider that the PS3 is also a DVD player, and the situation becomes even more interesting. Sony needs a checkbox in their marketing saying that the PS3 will play anybody's DVD content. But their ability to do the equivalent of CSS on their own games requires that, for computer programs as opposed to audio and video, they disallow any content they didn't create or license.

What Sony is attempting to do with the PS3 is, for computer programs, the equivalent of only allowing playback of those sanctioned programs that have been legally encrypted using its son-of-CSS DRM scheme. Since Sony doesn't allow the PS3 to play non-encrypted programs, the only way to use a PS3 to play original computer programming content is by breaking the encryption. This is a fundamentally different reason than the reason that led to the creation of DeCSS, because Sony's reason for caring is fundamentally different than the concerns that led to the creation of CSS. Or rather I should say, that in addition to the concerns that led to the creation of CSS, Sony has the more pressing concern that the entire purpose of the PS3 is to be able to extract rents from game manufacturers, and Hotz's break severely threatens this revenue stream.

People who think it's just about punishing Hotz have it right and wrong. Sony needs to send a message, so that any game manufacturer who even thinks about creating a game for the PS3 and not paying Sony its toll will realize that that is a losing legal proposition. Unfortunately, supporting this bad business decision on Sony's part is extremely bad public policy and is no reason for the judge to feel sorry for Sony.

A careful reading of the judgment in Universal v. Reimerdes (especially the overbreadth section) suggests that Judge Kaplan might well have decided differently if CSS prevented people from publishing their own DVDs without paying a toll to the DVD consortium.

Judge Kaplan recognized that there were hypothetical fair use arguments for DeCSS, but decided that Congress struck a careful fair use balance that DeCSS couldn't overcome. However, if he were presented with a hardware manufacturer, like Sony, attempting to disallow legal third-party software from running on its equipment via a copyright law, he probably would have decided correctly, just like the judges in Lexmark and Chamberlain.

So far, whether because of inattentiveness, prejudice, or inability to comprehend plain facts, Judge Illston is currently on the wrong side of precedent and, hopefully, the wrong side of history. Let's hope she figures it out and corrects herself before she does too much more damage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Geohot asks for donations for legal defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2011 @ 12:44 AM EST
http://geohot.com/#2/19/2011

(Though I would rather donate by way of EFF if I could be sure the money would
go to his defense effort.)

[ 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 )