| |||||||||||||
Why are almost all news sites focusing on Mr. Hotz?Why are almost all news sites focusing on Mr. Hotz?Posted Jan 13, 2011 13:23 UTC (Thu) by Curan (subscriber, #66186)Parent article: PS3 jailbreak prompts restraining order from Sony (CNet) Just to make sure: Sony also threatens fail0verflow (their tweet about the matter), the guys who demonstrated at 27C3 the weakness (Video (MP4) or Video (MP4/Torrent)) of Sony's "security system" (yeah, I know, there is a little more to it, but this was their epic FAIL).
(Log in to post comments)
Why are almost all news sites focusing on Mr. Hotz? Posted Jan 13, 2011 18:45 UTC (Thu) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
They also claimed they are Violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids accessing computers without authorization which I assume means they are claiming that they still own every PS3 sold.
A rather interesting argument.
CFAA Posted Jan 13, 2011 20:49 UTC (Thu) by Curan (subscriber, #66186) [Link]
I can't really comment on the CFAA, but if it is close to what's called "Hackerparagraf" around here, then I could see them make that claim without resorting to tell the judge, they still own every PS3 sold.
But then: a lot of entertainment industry folks have been constantly pushing for "right to use" instead of ownership and trying to change the meaning of the laws to reflect that. A lot of EULAs which originate in the USA seem to grant nothing more to a buyer than to allow him to use a bought piece of software/hardware for a limited time. Most of those weren't enforceable here, when I last checked, at least if you bought a physical disc containing the program, but they seemed to have been enforceable in the USA, so why not try to convince a court, that Sony's still owning all PS3s ever sold through some elaborate "IP rights" scheme.
CFAA Posted Jan 14, 2011 1:45 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Software is one thing because it deals with the inane IP laws. But in the US we have a long established English common law policy called first sale. Which is that the seller of a product has no control over the product after it's sold. They can write a EULA and demand all sorts of things but none of it's enforceable on the hardware and it's use. Under US laws for them to even charge in a lawsuit that it involves theft of computer services they are arguing (again under US law) that they own the computer in question because you can only steal computer services from someone else.
It's an astounding argument, in fact of all the charges they put in the lawsuit only one IMO came close to even a valid argument and that was that it was a DMCA violation to circumvent the encryption. In this case the DMCA violation is specifically allowed by the DMCA when seeking to implement interoperability with another software program or standard.
So out half a dozen charges in the lawsuit only one was even close to valid. They threw everything they could at it and some of them were blatant misinterpretations of the law. I'd personally like to see a change in the US legal system where if a plaintiff makes a charge in a lawsuit proven to be so obviously without merit that the entire lawsuit is dismissed. It's immensely dirty and immoral to make a claim of theft of computer services in this case.
CFAA Posted Jan 14, 2011 12:18 UTC (Fri) by Curan (subscriber, #66186) [Link]
Thanks for the explanation, just one question left: and there is no provision in there, that you're forbidden to own (or distribute, advertise, whatever for that matter) so called "hacker tools" to circumvent a technical measure to protect the content/system? Because that'd be the approach I'd see them take over here.
CFAA Posted Jan 15, 2011 0:54 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
Shortly after the DMCA was passed a common misunderstanding of the DMCA was how it applied and the exceptions. Early on people thought that if you got a take-down notice you had no recourse and it allowed companies to steam roll legitimate use. It was several years of DMCA notices before the counter-notice in the DMCA was really being talked about and people realized you could counter-notice the DMCA notice and get the material reposted almost immediately.
The DMCA includes numerous provisions and exceptions to the normal DMCA provisions in cases of inter-operation, reverse engineering and academic study. In fact nearly every provision of the law had exceptions for valid use. With any new law companies will deliberately misinterpret the law in lawsuits to try to get a favorable interpretation of the law by the courts. But basically what it boils down to is that if what you are doing isn't intended to copy copyrighted material you are probably going to be OK under the law IMO. The problem is that the first few people sued in cases like this are going to have to go full court press with a major corporation in court, probably all the way to the supreme to get the precedent established. I really hope George is supported by the legal aid organizations that exist so that a legal precedent can be established interpreting the law correctly (IMO as it was intended). IMO Congress had no intent to pass this law to limit the use of ones own purchased hardware, they did intend to prevent the widespread dissemination of copyrighted material via the internet.
As to your question, yes they will press the hacker-tool issue but the key point is did he have "tools" whose only purpose was to circumvent copy protection for the purpose of distributing copy protected material? My guess is that Sony will lose that charge and nearly every other with Summary Judgment Motion but unfortunately nothing is certain because this is one of the first to challenge the law on legitimate grounds.
Sony actually damaged their position by referring to George's work as jailbreaking, a term the library of congress used to describe perfectly legal breaking of encryption protection to use cell phones on networks other than the one it was purchased on and locked to. Although nothing is certain in cases like this George couldn't be a better first case, he has advocated against illegal copying of copyrighted material and he was trying to break the hardware open to use it for another purpose. Sony simply has no case that he was trying to copy games and implying such could get them in trouble, leaving their only option to claim that they have the right to control the hardware after it's purchased, something English common law doesn't agree with and I think isn't supported by the constitution.
As I said before my hope is someone like the EFF/ACLU or others steps in and takes this full court against Sony and sets a nasty precedent to use against all the companies that want to control physical products after purchase using the DMCA and a small blob of encryption code in hardware. This is simply an ideal case to bring to the supreme to get the DMCA abuse neutered and some of the anti-circumvention provisions watered down (to more accurately match congress's intention, legal precedent and the Constitution) when the goal isn't to abuse copyrighted materials.
I was a bit long winded but I hope I answered your question.
First Sale doctrine status Posted Jan 24, 2011 2:15 UTC (Mon) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link]
> But in the US we have a long established English common law policy called first sale.
That means less and less as time goes on if you're not watching what SCOTUS is up to:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/scotus-first-sale/
The case tied 4-4 so effectively upheld a lower court ruling without setting precedent, but the short of it is that IP (copyright) trumps first sale.
Synopsis: Costco was buying watches overseas and selling them in the U.S. Because the logo on the watch was copyrighted, this violated the copyright and thus Costco is barred from selling the watches. The argument is that applying the first sale doctrine to products not made in the U.S. would be enforcing U.S. laws on a foreign nation.
And guess what's not made in the U.S. anymore? Well, pretty much everything...
|
|||||||||||||