Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM PlayStation (Games) Sony The Courts Games

Judge Allows Subpoenas For GeoHot YouTube Viewers, Blog Visitors 306

Posted by timothy
from the center-for-talented-youth dept.
PhrostyMcByte writes "Stepping up Sony's lawsuit against PS3 jailbreak developer George Hotz, this Thursday a judge approved multiple subpoenas which seek logs of all viewers and commenters to his YouTube video, visitors to his blog and website, and all information associated with his Twitter account."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Allows Subpoenas For GeoHot YouTube Viewers, Blog Visitors

Comments Filter:
  • by intellitech (1912116) * on Saturday March 05, 2011 @09:54AM (#35388520)

    I really hope SCEA crashes and burns. I personally won't ever support their products again.

  • Well then... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05, 2011 @09:56AM (#35388524)

    Shouldn't we all view his video and leave a few choice comments about what a dirty little slut the prosecution's mom is?

  • More About the Judge (Score:5, Informative)

    by BooRadley (3956) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @10:07AM (#35388570)

    This says less about Sony, and more about the judge in the case. According to several ratings websites, Hon. Joseph Spero is pretty new to the Magistrate bench, and has the reputation for being predisposed to siding with government and business 100% of the time. Hopefully there will be an injunction and appeal coming soon on this.

  • by Kenshin (43036) <kenshin@@@lunarworks...ca> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @10:24AM (#35388646) Homepage

    As much as GeoHot put himself in this whole legal mess, with his publicity-seeking and taunting of Sony, it's asinine of Sony to go after his YouTube viewers and commenters. I guarantee that 99.9% of the viewers are just bystanders who wanted to see what all the fuss is about. He created the content and put the video up, people who simply clicked "play" did nothing wrong. In fact, YouTube holds more guilt than all of them simply for making it available.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 05, 2011 @10:44AM (#35388742)

    Haven't we learned yet that threats of legal action don't stop anything?

    erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
    riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
    pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
    R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
    n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
    K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
    Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

    ~geohot

    props to fail0verflow for the asymmetric half
    no donate link, just use this info wisely
    i do not condone piracy

    if you want your next console to be secure, get in touch with me. any of you 3.
    it'd be fun to be on the other side. ...and this is a real self, hello world
    although it's not NPDRM, so it won't run off the hard drive
    shouts to the guys who did PSL1GHT
    without you, I couldn't release this

  • by netsharc (195805) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @11:15AM (#35388884)

    Here's one [salon.com]

    Here's another one [salon.com].

    Is getting asked to speak at a mostly Republican event, and getting "reimbursed for the flight and hotel" enough of a payout for you? How about if it was a first class flight and 5-star Penthouse room with "order anything you want from room service.". Sure, no cash exchanged hands, maybe he just got lobster dinners and got it "reimbursed" because he was traveling to be a guest speaker, and he surely had to eat right? Is that still kosher?

    And Thomas' wife works with tea partiers and get money from them. OK, neutral much?

  • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @11:45AM (#35389044)

    >>>unbiased protectors of the individuals that make up the nation and her constitution

    Where did you ever get the illusion the Supreme Court was "unbiased"??? That was never, ever, never the case. Even as early as 1805 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions --- a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

    "Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

    "...But the Chief Justice says there must be an arbiter somewhere. True there must, but the ultimate arbiter is the People, as represented by their deputies in the State Legislatures. Let the States decide to which they meant to give power, and amend the constitution if necessary."
    .

    Since the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" per the Constitution's OWN words. It is not the Union judiciary's responsibility to protect individuals. It is the responsibility of the People and the States, standing-up for their rights against an overreaching central government-megacorp tyrant, and nullifying unjust laws whenever the occasion warrants.

  • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Saturday March 05, 2011 @12:04PM (#35389174) Homepage

    Back when the PS3 came out things looked a little different:

    PS3: Supported Linux, lets you replace the HDD, supports generic USB controller, supports generic Bluetooth headsets, supports USB webcams, supports Flash, SD, etc.
    Xbox360: No Linux, proprietary HDD, proprietary controller (including special security to lock-out third parties), proprietary wireless protocol, proprietary memory cards and a heck of a lot of red-rings.

    Basically the PS3 was extremely open for a mainstream console, far more so then basically anything else, Xbox360 on the other side was as locked down as possible. Sony looked to be on the right track with the PS3, what they hope to accomplish now with this witch hunt is beyond me, it won't put genie back in the bottle, but it goes a long way to ruin their image permanently.

  • by KeithIrwin (243301) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @12:57PM (#35389458)

    I'd love to testify about how I used his Nuit Du Hack talk as part of the Hardware and Media Security class this semester and why I think it's perfectly legitimate and worthwhile security research.

  • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @01:17PM (#35389630)

    The entire purpose of getting IP addresses is to establish that many people from California downloaded information. Why is this important? Because Sony wants to sue in California, instead of where GeoHot lives. That's the purpose of this exercise, determining where the case is filed.

    I think the judge should have required a neutral third party to analyze the data, instead of trusting Sony, but otherwise this is legitimate.

  • by DRJlaw (946416) on Saturday March 05, 2011 @03:37PM (#35390816)

    The entire purpose of getting IP addresses is to establish that many people from California downloaded information. Why is this important? Because Sony wants to sue in California, instead of where GeoHot lives. That's the purpose of this exercise, determining where the case is filed.

    Then it is not a valid purpose. Caselaw concerning the internet and personal jurisdiction has been clear for at least the last decade: you have to specifically transact with someone within the jurisdiction. Offering "static" information to the entire world does not subject someone to to personal jurisdiction within every court within the United States. Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997). Sony has to show that GeoHot made a "purposeful availment of the benefits and protections" offered by California, not that he posted a video that even a horde of Californians viewed on YouTube. Bensusan; International Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

    I think the judge should have required a neutral third party to analyze the data, instead of trusting Sony, but otherwise this is legitimate.

    An unsupported conclusion is no conclusion at all. Cite your authority.

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...