Support NeoGAF

[Boombloxer]

It's a weird reversal. This gen I'd been impressed with Sony's "open-ness" and other things too. USB peripherals (with limits of course), HDD easily changeable, free online, (crappy) browser, Other OS (hmm). It's that last one that's caused them so many problems. I do feel kind of sorry for them.

Yea, we'll be kissing all that shit goodbye next gen most likely.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

It takes a special kind of person to even begin to think to equate these two issues together let alone write it down.

Congratulations.

Its in the damn article, it was an actual question adressed to the bench!

 

[MrBelmontvedere]

It's sort of weird that Sony gets to seize the computers, rather than the police.

obviously the police will do the actual seizing. who else would, the Yukuza? puff the magic dragon? santa claus?

 

[TheChillyAcademic]

Its in the damn article, it was an actual question adressed to the bench!

I know I know, I worded it poorly!! >.<

 

[Mama Robotnik]

I know I know, I worded it poorly!! >.<

Just read your edit, no worries.

 

[phosphor112]

Yea, we'll be kissing all that shit goodbye next gen most likely.

If it does, I'd be pissed. Of course 90% of GAF will defend Hots over that. That's for another subject though.

 

[squatingyeti]

People keep arguing about owning the hardware, but not the software stack. Fine, you don't need to own the software, you need fair use as allowed by the DMCA. The reason the exemption was given for phones was NOT because of a monopoly. It was because Apple had a closed system and would not allow legally obtained software to run on the phone a consumer owned.

Tell me how this is all fundamentally different than this:

The fact that the person engaging in jailbreaking is doing so in order to use Apple's firmware on the device that it was designed to operate, which the jailbreaker owns, and to use it for precisely the purpose for which it was designed (but for the fact that it has been modified to run applications not approved by Apple) favors finding that the purpose and character of the use is innocuous at worst and beneficial at best.

Replace Apple with Sony and it's the exact same. Then, you have this as a test for fair use:

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Just as with phones, the firmware is provided for free with the device. There is no effect on the value of the firmware because it is jailbroken. This is not even debatable.

We also have this:

Apple responded that unathorized uses diminish the value of the copyrighted works to Apple. However, Apple is not concerned that the practice of jailbreaking will displace sales of its firmware or of iphones; indeed, since one cannot engage in that practice unless one has acquired an iPhone.

Sales of the PS3 cannot be damaged by this because you actually need a PS3 to do it!

A huge point to note that people keep wanting to talk about is that piracy was never an issue with the phone exemption and similarly cannot be an issue here because the fact that something could be used for piracy has long since been ruled pretty much irrelevant when there are legitimate uses.

 

[phosphor112]

Sales of the PS3 cannot be damaged by this because you actually need a PS3 to do it!

A huge point to note that people keep wanting to talk about is that piracy was never an issue with the phone exemption and similarly cannot be an issue here because the fact that something could be used for piracy has long since been ruled pretty much irrelevant when there are legitimate uses.

Sales of the software that is licensed by Sony can be damaged though, and for the first several years, that was their staple income. Yes, it was their choice to subsidize the cost, but even if they didn't need to, the decrease in sales damages Sony.

IIRC, Apple didn't have to rely on any of those factors. They sold the hardware, they sold the dev kits, no matter how well/poorly Apps sold, they still made money and piracy cannot affect them. The same cannot be said about Sony's situation.

 

[Jokeropia]

I don't know what's worse, the ruling, Sony being complete douchebags or the fans defending it.

 

[itsgreen]

Sales of the software that is licensed by Sony can be damaged though, and for the first several years, that was their staple income. Yes, it was their choice to subsidize the cost, but even if they didn't need to, the decrease in sales damages Sony.

IIRC, Apple didn't have to rely on any of those factors. They sold the hardware, they sold the dev kits, no matter how well/poorly Apps sold, they still made money and piracy cannot affect them. The same cannot be said about Sony's situation.

Yeah despite me not liking what Sony is able to do, if it is in their right, it is in their right.

And software sales make up a VERY important part of the business plan of all three companies.

 

[Magnus]

Sony's gonna use his computer to see if he had anything on cross-game voicechat. They are desperate!

Hahahah

 

[Key2001]

I believe Sony was only denied a Motion to Shorten Time. Sony wanted to have the hearing on February 9th.

02/08/2011 - 65 - ORDER denying 61 Motion to Shorten Time (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2011) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

The hearing was set for March 11th. I don't believe it will be granted or denied until after the hearing.

02/07/2011 - Set/Reset Deadlines as to 62 MOTION to Expedite MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2011 09:00 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. (ys, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/08/2011)

 

[squatingyeti]

Sales of the software that is licensed by Sony can be damaged though, and for the first several years, that was their staple income. Yes, it was their choice to subsidize the cost, but even if they didn't need to, the decrease in sales damages Sony.

IIRC, Apple didn't have to rely on any of those factors. They sold the hardware, they sold the dev kits, no matter how well/poorly Apps sold, they still made money and piracy cannot affect them. The same cannot be said about Sony's situation.

Again, you're going back to the argument of piracy. Furthermore, you're ignoring what is fair use with the software stack, since people want to keep saying you own the hardware, but not the software. Modding the firmware cannot effect the sales of said firmware and therefore, just like the phone case, would be one reason why fair use would be ok.

Your argument though is still, because piracy could take place. I also like how you laugh off the fact that piracy couldn't affect Apple. Like if no apps were being sold because of piracy, that wouldn't change a thing with developer commitment. Which then wouldn't have any effect on sales of the phone. Then, you turn around and argue that piracy could greatly harm sony.

 

[Dash Kappei]

[QUOTE='[Nintex] They did manage to 'profit' from it in some sort of sleazy Nintendo way. Enter Super Smash Bros. Brawl, the US version was playable with a freeloader and other means in Europe up untill a week before it launched. Nintendo released an update along with the PAL version of Brawl to block the freeloader and other basic mostly old homebrew stuff. So if you live in Europe you probably own two copies of Super Smash Bros. Brawl...[/QUOTE]FUCKING. INSANE.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

For all the cries about Sony removing functionality, how many actually used Linux? It's like removing the ability for the media player to play songs longer than four hours, to fix another unforseen problem. Someone will probably miss it, but is it a reason to start bashing the company?

Of course, Sony are over-reacting horribly, especially with the Youtube stuff. But in their position, what else is there to do? This guy has probably cost them a fair share of their projected income for the next few years and might also help scare off potential (paying) customers who hear about how they can't play Black Ops now because it's all hacked. If I were Sony at that point, I'd want to see heads roll regardless.

As for HDD companies being responsible for piracy, there's actually a fee for DVD-R:s in Sweden specifically for that, and they're applying it to HDD:s next... :/

 

[squatingyeti]

For all the cries about Sony removing functionality, how many actually used Linux? It's like removing the ability for the media player to play songs longer than four hours, to fix another unforseen problem. Someone will probably miss it, but is it a reason to start bashing the company?

Completely flawed argument. I don't miss it, so it's ok to trample consumer rights. People, this goes way beyond just Sony and the PS3. Does no one understand the problem with legal precedence?

Of course, Sony are over-reacting horribly, especially with the Youtube stuff. But in their position, what else is there to do? This guy has probably cost them a fair share of their projected income for the next few years and might also help scare off potential (paying) customers who hear about how they can't play Black Ops now because it's all hacked. If I were Sony at that point, I'd want to see heads roll regardless.

Probably cost them? Maybe? Could? Come on, this is another terrible argument. To top it off, we start talking about cheating online again which was happening before any CFW was out. Furthermore, Sony could ban people whenever they want, but have chosen to do nothing.

 

[Dash Kappei]

For all the cries about Sony removing functionality, how many actually used Linux? It's like removing the ability for the media player to play songs longer than four hours, to fix another unforseen problem. Someone will probably miss it, but is it a reason to start bashing the company?

Of course, Sony are over-reacting horribly, especially with the Youtube stuff. But in their position, what else is there to do? This guy has probably cost them a fair share of their projected income for the next few years and might also help scare off potential (paying) customers who hear about how they can't play Black Ops now because it's all hacked. If I were Sony at that point, I'd want to see heads roll regardless.

As for HDD companies being responsible for piracy, there's actually a fee for DVD-R:s in Sweden specifically for that, and they're applying it to HDD:s next... :/

That's missing the point.
Even if one person bought the system also BECAUSE of Linux, that is enough.

 

[Mithos]

I am pretty sure he could be held in contempt of court if doesn't give them the password.

In the UK now you can and will (it's already happened) go to jail if you don't tell the courts / police any encryption keys you have. Forgetting is no defence.

Well doesn't TruCrypt contain the ability to have multiple passwords that unlocks different things?

So he (if he were using TruCrypt) could just give the password that unlocks the drive the "wrong" way, and none would be the wiser?

 

[Dash Kappei]

Sales of the software that is licensed by Sony can be damaged though, and for the first several years, that was their staple income. Yes, it was their choice to subsidize the cost, but even if they didn't need to, the decrease in sales damages Sony.

IIRC, Apple didn't have to rely on any of those factors. They sold the hardware, they sold the dev kits, no matter how well/poorly Apps sold, they still made money and piracy cannot affect them. The same cannot be said about Sony's situation.

Oh god, don't know how I missed this gem.
I better leave this thread to those braver than me, or I might crack my head open banging on the wall right now.

 

[SiegfriedFM]

Completely flawed argument. I don't miss it, so it's ok to trample consumer rights. People, this goes way beyond just Sony and the PS3. Does no one understand the problem with legal precedence?
Probably cost them? Maybe? Could? Come on, this is another terrible argument. To top it off, we start talking about cheating online again which was happening before any CFW was out. Furthermore, Sony could ban people whenever they want, but have chosen to do nothing.

What about my right as a consumer not to have my online experience spoiled by hackers? Right now it's just Black Ops (right?) but what if online play is hacked for every major game? That affects far more people than Linux removal. Of course, in this case it failed anyway but Sony had to make that choice on who to piss off.

 

[Balphon]

Its in the damn article, it was an actual question adressed to the bench!

That you're taking out of context. The analogy to child pornography prosecutions is that those are another instance where a request to search doesn't need to be any more particular than "so-and-so's hard drives." Noone is actually comparing what Hotz did to child pornography. This isn't even a criminal prosecution.

 

[phosphor112]

Again, you're going back to the argument of piracy. Furthermore, you're ignoring what is fair use with the software stack, since people want to keep saying you own the hardware, but not the software. Modding the firmware cannot effect the sales of said firmware and therefore, just like the phone case, would be one reason why fair use would be ok.

Your argument though is still, because piracy could take place. I also like how you laugh off the fact that piracy couldn't affect Apple. Like if no apps were being sold because of piracy, that wouldn't change a thing with developer commitment. Which then wouldn't have any effect on sales of the phone. Then, you turn around and argue that piracy could greatly harm sony.

Well... considering we are talking about the DMCA playing a big role here, I think it is very relevant.

 

[Opiate]

What about my right as a consumer not to have my online experience spoiled by hackers? Right now it's just Black Ops (right?) but what if online play is hacked for every major game? That affects far more people than Linux removal. Of course, in this case it failed anyway but Sony had to make that choice on who to piss off.

You still have the right to play online. You're just saying it may not be quite as much fun for you. The actual equivalent would be if your right to play on PSN were actively taken away.

Moreover, the effect you are experiencing is indirect: homebrewers hope that you have a wonderful, pleasant experience on PSN and they have no interest in taking away your rights -- or your convenience. Pirates may mess things up anyway, but it is not the homebrewer's intention. By contrast, you seem to be directly and explicitly asking for OtherOS user's rights to be taken away.

Put more succinctly: you are willing to sacrifice other people's consumer rights for your own consumer convenience. It is not an equivalent trade. Rest assured, if homebrewers were directly asking that your right to play on PSN be permanently removed, I'd be on your side, too.

 

[fart town usa]

What about my right as a consumer not to have my online experience spoiled by hackers? Right now it's just Black Ops (right?) but what if online play is hacked for every major game? That affects far more people than Linux removal. Of course, in this case it failed anyway but Sony had to make that choice on who to piss off.

No it's ok. Sony is completely in the wrong and we as consumers are entitled to everything.

Geohot never went and made posts about how he was going to hack the PS3 via the otherOS feature and he never posted pictures such as these,

Sony just happened to remove the otherOS option a few weeks later just to f*ck with consumers.

 

[Raistlin]

Not a criminal trial, I think that makes the difference.

While true, without oversight what's to stop Sony from fabricating whatever they want here?

This guy is playing with fire one too many times. You don't fuck with giant corporations. Sony will drag this along till he's poor and bankrupt

He's old enough to know the consequences and yet dumb enough to keep doing it.

He's not paying for his representation iirc

 

[Freshmaker]

I hope Sony cook his balls and serve it to him, serves him right.

So THAT's what your avatar's chewing...

 

[joshcryer]

if he's set it up correctly, there won't be any questions like that...

Yep, hidden volume. I'm sure if he uses TrueCrypt in that way, it'd be hidden and locked down (say he has the Sony SDK or something). But in reality he doesn't have to do anything illegal and they likely won't find anything on his computers that is illegal. He's a researcher in the eyes of the law.

Opiate, game modders, trainers, and wallhackers are "homebrewers" too, they allow you to do things with your system that isn't intended, like cheat in games, etc. (Playing devils advocate here.)

 

[kamorra]

Geohot never went and made posts about how he was going to hack the PS3 via the otherOS feature and he never posted pictures such as these,

Who's disputing that?

 

[RyanDG]

For everyone suggesting that the evidence disappear or be encrypted so that Sony wouldn't have access to it... The problem in a case like this - if you look at the RIAA lawsuits as background - evidence not being presented when ordered with a court order is often times more harmful to the defendant than presenting the evidence to begin with. The lack of evidence is often construed in these type of cases as being evidence of guilt (remember, this isn't a case where Sony has the burden of proof unfortunately). There were a lot of times when juries actually weighed heavier penalties against defendant's who sought ways to obstruct the evidence being presented than what would've been handed against them had the initial evidence been presented.

Because of this, I really, really don't think that's the route geohot should be looking at going when it comes to presenting evidence for this case.

With that said though, I really think that the lawyer should fight this order tooth and nail, as it's a scary fucking order even if the judge supposedly is going to make sure there's oversight in what Sony can get from the information. I'm sorry, corporations given the permission to search your hard drives and personal effects willy nilly during a lawsuit was fucking horrible during the RIAA and MPAA lawsuits and they are just as bad now.

 

[joshcryer]

The lack of evidence is often construed in these type of cases as being evidence of guilt.

Agreed. I think all the code he has made available and all other hacking efforts he has done are going to be on those drives and accessible by Sony without issues (he can hand over the password). If he's done anything illegal it'd be on a hidden volume and they cannot prove there's a hidden volume.

If I ever got an RIAA lawsuit my drives would go to the courts as is. I run an open access point and I don't download music (YouTube is really good at playlisting these days, heh).

 

[NullPointer]

Put more succinctly: you are willing to sacrifice other people's consumer rights for your own consumer convenience. It is not an equivalent trade. Rest assured, if homebrewers were directly asking that your right to play on PSN be permanently removed, I'd be on your side, too.

True, but I'd like to add that the "customer convenience" side bought their PS3s to play games online and off, and for media capabilities that it was designed and widely marketed for. The homebrew and hacking communities seemingly did not. Both of those niche communities had a very wide selection of hardware they could have purchased to satisfy their needs.

So from my perspective I see this more as an argument between those who bought the PS3 for games/media and those who want to transform the PS3 into something else. And in that light its not right to sacrifice the experience of mainstream PS3 owners for a niche group that wants emulators or custom apps. Its not pro-Sony/pro-corporation position to want your PS3/PSN experience to be as solid as possible.

The consumer rights issues are valid, and in this story there are quite a few issues to work out, but its not that simple.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

Or perhaps the cheerleaders simply don't care.

gotta love console warz.

While consumers have the right to do what they want with a product, many of you don't understand the convergence of multi-media and every day products. Since everything is becoming more connected, you need to be mindful of what exactly you are doing. Lots of people are quick to call foul over Sony, or say Sony has a rootkit, but you guys are honestly over reacting in every sense of the word.

In this very moment of time, what Hotz did was illegal and Sony has the right as a company to pursue someone (in this case, him) for damages they have done.

that's why ive always said all this "social connectivity" we all jumped headfirst into in the last decade is such a double edged sword.

Congrats, we actually rent/license our products/games now guys!

*pulls ethernet cable*

 

[NintendoGal]

So wait, Sony, a private company, can seize the personal property of a US citizen now?

Did I read that wrong or am I missing something? I can understand handing his stuff over to the cops with a warrant and such, but not a company. If this is true, why isn't anyone really outraged about that?

 

[squatingyeti]

Well... considering we are talking about the DMCA playing a big role here, I think it is very relevant.

Hey, completely ignore the whole point of my first post you responded to, choosing only to address piracy. Then, completely miss the idea that just because piracy could happen, as noted in my first post, does not mean that should override perfectly legitimate use and that is how it has been seen time and again. In fact, that's the same way Sony argued FOR our consumer rights in the past.

Then, when I point out how flawed your reply to me about piracy is, even beyond the fact that just because piracy could happen, does not take away fair use (even giving the phone examples and asking how the PS3 is fundamentally different); you ignore your own flawed argument about how piracy could hurt Sony, but was somehow a non-factor with Apple and say what I have quoted above.

Please, tell me what I posted in my original post is somehow fundamentally different compared to this situation. I already addressed your, "well Apple didn't have to worry about piracy" nonsense, now address the point of my original post.

I find a heaping pile of hypocrisy on anyone seeing a fundamental difference between the closed system of phones and the closed system of consoles. Explain how I'm wrong. Maybe cite some stuff like I did.

 

[RyanDG]

See post 201. Was a different argument. That it was an attack vector was clear, but this particular part of the discussion was limited to why geohot and some others specifically began targeting the PS3 after the release of the slim (when geohot started he said that his one intention was to bring otheros to the slim... which does have a certain irony now).

Edit - I see you've now quoted 201, but I'm not sure you follow.

See, I guess I may have missed something. I thought previously you were asking whether or not these people were working on the PS3 through exploiting the otheros prior to the announcement of the slim and the announcement that the otheros wouldn't be featured in the revision of the console. If that's not what you were suggesting, I apologize, I misunderstood. I was just making the point that the OtherOS has been the primary method (and theory) to get access to the PS3 from day 1 when it was first released when people were trying to find ways to open up the graphics processor (and speculation on the hypervisor). I was just commenting that Geohot himself was even working on exploiting the otheros prior to the announcement of the slim. He just stopped his work on it for a while and didn't pick it back up until he decided to bring the otheros back to the slim as you stated.

You are right when it comes to the fact that most groups weren't working on the PS3 with any real progress until after the slim, I was just making the point that there was work, even work by geohot, prior to that point.

But if I misunderstood your point, that's my bad.

 

[Opiate]

True, but I'd like to add that the "customer convenience" side bought their PS3s to play games online and off, and for media capabilities that it was designed and widely marketed for. The homebrew and hacking communities seemingly did not. Both of those niche communities had a very wide selection of hardware they could have purchased to satisfy their needs.

So from my perspective I see this more as an argument between those who bought the PS3 for games/media and those who want to transform the PS3 into something else. And in that light its not right to sacrifice the experience of mainstream PS3 owners for a niche group that wants emulators or custom apps. Its not pro-Sony/pro-corporation position to want your PS3/PSN experience to be as solid as possible.

The consumer rights issues are valid, and in this story there are quite a few issues to work out, but its not that simple.

This is an interesting discussion, to which I have two responses.

First, homebrew and games are not an either/or proposition: there will be a significant number of people who bought it for both. In fact, I have exactly one friend who chose the PS3 over the 360 and cited OtherOS as one of the primary reasons (the other being BluRay). Granted, I work in database administration, am surrounded by techies, and this particular techie is a Linux aficionado: but it does established that such people exist, and they aren't necessarily buying it exclusively for OtherOS -- and this substantially increases the size of this minority. I agree that the number of people who bought the PS3 exculsively for OtherOS has to be very small.

Second, even I grant that this is still a minority, I don't think you'll want to travel down this road. You are effectively advocating the convenience of the majority over the rights of the minority. I'm sure you can imagine what a terrible precedent that would set, both legally and morally?

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

So wait, Sony, a private company, can seize the personal property of a US citizen now?

Did I read that wrong or am I missing something? I can understand handing his stuff over to the cops with a warrant and such, but not a company. If this is true, why isn't anyone really outraged about that?

Someone mentioned it on the first page, Hotz is turning it over to the court. Sony isn't busting his door and shit down spraying bullets in his fucking face while taking his computer and pissing on his junk.

 

[RyanDG]

So wait, Sony, a private company, can seize the personal property of a US citizen now?

Did I read that wrong or am I missing something? I can understand handing his stuff over to the cops with a warrant and such, but not a company. If this is true, why isn't anyone really outraged about that?

Technically it's being seized and supervised through the courts, which doesn't make it all that much better to be honest, but that's why it's being done.

 

[Balphon]

So wait, Sony, a private company, can seize the personal property of a US citizen now?

Did I read that wrong or am I missing something? I can understand handing his stuff over to the cops with a warrant and such, but not a company. If this is true, why isn't anyone really outraged about that?

It's not a "seizure," just like this isn't a "prosecution." They made a request for his computer, because they think it might have evidence related to their claim against him. He didn't give it to them. They asked the court to make him give them his computer. It did. Discovery hijinx is an incredibly pedestrian part of litigation.

 

[Opiate]

So wait, Sony, a private company, can seize the personal property of a US citizen now?

Did I read that wrong or am I missing something? I can understand handing his stuff over to the cops with a warrant and such, but not a company. If this is true, why isn't anyone really outraged about that?

Hold on now -- think of this differently.

This is now a legal proceeding. George Hotz' personal computer is going to be included as evidence in the trial for obvious reasons.

The claimants (i.e. Sony representatives) want the opportunity to examine the evidence related to their claim. There are complications, certainly (i.e. Sony isn't just getting access to the files related to Sony, but all of Hotz' personal information), but the only other alternative is to disallow the procedant from examining evidence, which simply isn't just or reasonable.

I am not ultimately on Sony's side here -- read the rest of my posts in the thread if you need proof -- but that doesn't mean everything they do is monstrous and unfair. Asking to examine evidence in a court proceeding is completely reasonable. If you can come up with a practical way for Sony to examine only the files related to the trial, I'm all ears.

 

[mclem]

I cant believe gamers are actually on Hotz side. I just want PSN to let me jump online when I feel like it and not get cheated against, which is this guys fault.

If more people blamed poorly-written, insecure net code for cheating in online games, we might actually get some well-written, secure net code.

 

[Balphon]

If you can come up with a practical way for Sony to examine only the files related to the trial, I'm all ears.

They have one: the court's order.

“Here, I find probable cause that your client has got these things on his computer,” she said. “It’s a problem when more than one thing is kept on the computer. I’ll make sure the order is and will be that Sony is only entitled to isolate … the information on the computer that relates to the hacking of the PlayStation.”

 

[NullPointer]

I find a heaping pile of hypocrisy on anyone seeing a fundamental difference between the closed system of phones and the closed system of consoles. Explain how I'm wrong. Maybe cite some stuff like I did.

Your argument is a good one, and I can't debate you in legalese, but in expectation.

When people think of phones, they think of a device capable of making calls, completely decoupled from any particular service provider. Jailbreaking a phone to detach it from AT&T or some other provider seems like a reasonable request considering how we've used phones historically.

Playing console games is the opposite. We've come to expect to buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games, Sony hardware for Playstation games, etc. The software is specifically designed or adjusted to fit on that hardware. There isn't an expectation that a PS3 will play games not designed for the platform, so the motives aren't so clear for cracking the platform.

Like I said, I think the consumer rights argument is a very valid one, but I'm just trying to describe why people wouldn't naturally assume that gaming consoles and phones are similar enough devices. Not the best argument, I know. ;P

Second, even I grant that this is still a minority, I don't think you'll want to travel down this road. You are effectively advocating the convenience of the majority over the rights of the minority. I'm sure you can imagine what a terrible precedent that would set, both legally and morally?

I'm certainly not advocating that the mainstream automatically wins. Not by a long shot. I also think that the removal of OtherOS should have been compensated, and hope that the class action suits against Sony go somewhere positive. But there is emotion on both sides of this issue, and a few people on both sides are wearing blinders, oblivious to the concerns of others. You can want PS3 and PSN to be a fully secure environment without being a fanboy of Sony, just as you can applaud the system being cracked wide open without seeking to pirate or cheat in online games.

But this is looking like a zero sum game here, and that's the rub.

 

[mclem]

those people had a choice, they were not forced to update and lose otherOS.

Just like Sophie!

 

[NintendoGal]

Technically it's being seized and supervised through the courts, which doesn't make it all that much better to be honest, but that's why it's being done.

It's not a "seizure," just like this isn't a "prosecution." They made a request for his computer, because they think it might have evidence related to their claim against him. He didn't give it to them. They asked the court to make him give them his computer. It did. Discovery hijinx is an incredibly pedestrian part of litigation.

Hold on now -- think of this differently.

This is now a legal proceeding. George Hotz' personal computer is going to be included as evidence in the trial for obvious reasons.

The claimants (i.e. Sony representatives) want the opportunity to examine the evidence related to their claim. There are complications, certainly (i.e. Sony isn't just getting access to the files related to Sony, but all of Hotz' personal information), but the only other alternative is to disallow the procedant from examining evidence, which simply isn't just or reasonable.

I am not ultimately on Sony's side here -- read the rest of my posts in the thread if you need proof -- but that doesn't mean everything they do is monstrous and unfair. Asking to examine evidence in a court proceeding is completely reasonable. If you can come up with a practical way for Sony to examine only the files related to the trial, I'm all ears.

Well that's why I'm asking for clarification because the article (Wired) had a specific sentence that said:

The judge had originally ruled weeks ago that Hotz must surrender all of his computer gear to Sony.

That is the reason for my outrage. If it's being done through proper channels/police/whatever and they're able to examine it, that's one thing. However, if it's him being forced to give his stuff to Sony, I have issue.

 

[timetokill]

They have one: the court's order.

I'm sure that can't be stretched to mean "emails to fellow hackers, information or addresses or names of fellow hackers because they might have saw a PS3 once in their life, etc."

 

[ajim]

Wow. I REALLY hope he DBAN'd the fuck out of his HDD.

 

[Raist]

Just as with phones, the firmware is provided for free with the device. There is no effect on the value of the firmware because it is jailbroken. This is not even debatable.

So, you paid for linux support and Sony removing it without giving you a compensation was an insult to your consumers rights, but the FW is free?

 

[Balphon]

I'm sure that can't be stretched to mean "emails to fellow hackers, information or addresses or names of fellow hackers because they might have saw a PS3 once in their life, etc."

I wouldn't know what Sony is or isn't looking for. But even so, what makes you think Sony wouldn't be entitled to that information? After all, how else are they supposed to know who was and wasn't involved in whatever claim they might have? And if they are so entitled, what other available means is there to get it? Saying "please" doesn't seem to be working.

That is the reason for my outrage. If it's being done through proper channels/police/whatever and they're able to examine it, that's one thing. However, if it's him being forced to give his stuff to Sony, I have issue.

Typically he would simply be forced to give his stuff to Sony. But that's just how litigation works, and even then it's not like it's an unsupervised process. Sanctions for abusing discovery can be hefty.

 

[Blueblur1]

So what if he destroys/hides his computer?

I was thinking that he should just format the HDD. That would be hilarious.