Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Sony The Courts Your Rights Online Games

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot 397

Posted by timothy
from the do-you-defend-him-to-your-death? dept.
tekgoblin writes "The courts have just issued a temporary restraining order against George Hotz (Geohot). Sony filed this lawsuit because they were unhappy that Geohot had released the Playstation 3 decryption keys so other people could play unsigned games on it. [Geohot is prohibited from] 'offering to the public, creating, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking' in any software or methods for circumventing the PS3's protection methods. No longer can he 'provide links from any website to any other website' relating to such matters, or publish any information obtained by hacking the PS3. And more to the point, he can no longer 'engage in acts of circumvention of TPMS in the PS3 System to access, obtain, remove, or traffic in copyrighted works.' Pretty much he can't talk or think about the PS3 for some time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

Comments Filter:
  • by Dayofswords (1548243) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:33PM (#35025504)

    At one point I wanted a PS3... Then this crap that has been coming from them since other OS removal

  • by Moryath (553296) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @06:59PM (#35025814)

    The answer is "interstate commerce clause."

    No, seriously. Our fucked-up senile delinquents on the Supreme Court have ruled that everything under the goddamn sun falls under the "interstate commerce clause."

    Want to grow your own wheat to feed to your own chickens, which means you didn't have to buy someone else's wheat? Sorry. ""Interstate Commerce." [google.com]

    The same crap comes up in just about any argument. Want to regulate guns? Well sure, they might conceivably be sold across state lines. Even if the original factory won't sell them out of state, a rebuyer might, or someone might buy one and ship it to someone later or someone from out of state could buy it and transport it themselves or or.... yeah. You get the picture. Regulate food, regulate clothes, everything under the damn sun can be regulated under the "interstate commerce clause"... a clause originally intended to merely stop the various states from erecting tax stations and charging "import tariffs" on each other's borders, as was happening under the Articles of Confederation....

  • Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thisisauniqueid (825395) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:02PM (#35025848)
    Doesn't matter. With the root key, his job is done.
  • by coolsnowmen (695297) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:04PM (#35025884)

    Sony should have left the "Other OS" feature on and just "unsupported." There was a link on /. last time this came up to a black hat conference on the trend of gameOS hacking. Sony PS3 enjoyed the longest time in recently history from launch till being compromised to be able to run custom "home brew" and pirated software (3.16 years). If you date it from when they removed the "Other OS" feature, it falls right in line with every other hacked game system (Xbox/360, game cube, wii, ps2, dreamcast...). Bottom line, if you don't allow people to install linux, enough people will be motivated to break your system to do just that, also opening the can-of-worms that is pirated software.

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:07PM (#35025930) Journal

    I've wondered if a criminal defendent could use the interstate commerce clause against a state law.

    For example, someone is prosecuted under state law for some offence. Criminal defendent says: "but this affects interstate commerce, hence it is the province of the federal governement to regulate it -- and, by the way, there isn't a federal law prohibiting this offense". Since the Supremes have completely gutted any limit to the interstate commerce clause, it's hard to imagine any activity that could not be described as affecting interstate commerce. Unless there is a federal law that specifically allows the states to regulate that activity, it seems like it would be an interesting tactic.

  • by Zelgadiss (213127) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @07:12PM (#35025988)

    Let's get something straight.

    Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

    Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

    PS: This is the end of my karma I suppose.

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:08PM (#35026594)

    Geohot was the one who threw the first punch, he broke through the hypervisior using "other OS" and "bus glitching", Sony removed "other OS" in response.

    Regardless whether you think that was the right response, it's not unexpected and unprovoked.

    Why should we disregard whether or not it was an appropriate response? That matters a great deal. Taking away features from everyone is an extreme overreaction. It could be expected since consumers seem to have no rights, but that doesn't justify it.

    It's kind of like saying "Those people currently protesting against their governments threw the first punch. Regardless whether you think it was the right response, police cracking down with lethal force was neither unexpected nor unprovoked." I'd say it's still unprovoked.

    Expected, sure, but so what? It's still wrong.

  • by Schadrach (1042952) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @08:13PM (#35026642)

    If there was anything in the Judge's order that smelled of misconduct to me, it would be that she is hearing the case in the first place rather than in NJ (where geohot is) or somewhere with an actual Sony corporate office at the time the suit was filed.

    AFAICT, the whole argument there was that they claimed one of the Does was likely to live in CA, so they had standing to sue in CA. Does that mean that I can simply add an unidentified Doe to any suit I want and move the case to whatever jurisdiction I want to pretend he’s in?

    More importantly, does this mean that if that particular Doe is discovered not to be in CA that they have no claim to standing in that jurisdiction and would need to throw the case out and start over in an appropriate locale?

    IANAL, so I would love some clarification on this one, because it honestly confuses me.

  • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @09:02PM (#35027008)
    Car analogy. You buy a shiny new car with an amazing steering wheel warmer, but you live in a warm environment. Because somebody was researching a way to use that steering wheel warmer to do something the company deemed as nefarious, it disabled that feature on every car. You may not have been affected, it may only have bothered a few dozen drivers. But that does not change the fact that an advertised feature was removed from a product. I'm not painting Geohot as a modern Robin Hood, but he didn't pull the trigger...Sony did. I won't even bother responding to your personal attack because to be honest, if you're on this site and see all geeks as basement dwelling loners then you have a lot to learn.
  • Ex Parte. Very nice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by russotto (537200) on Thursday January 27, 2011 @09:30PM (#35027188) Journal

    So Sony sends one of their expensive lawyers to court against an individual, and gets a broad temporary restraining order against him "ex parte"... meaning he didn't even get a _chance_ to fucking respond.

    Oh, and despite this being a "temporary" restraining order, it's actually indefinite.

    Fuck Sony and fuck the honorable rubberstamp Susan Yvonne Illston.

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

Working...