Donated.
I've never donated to anything like this, but Sony's actions are fundamentally corrupt and if unchallenged, will set a terrible precedent for all of us, and severely hurt this individual.
Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
71–80 of 88 posts
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cases like this don't come down to a simple interpretation of an existing law, often focusing more on the intent than the wording. Sony actually defended a similar case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer... . Edit: HN sees to dislike periods at the end of URL's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univer...
Uh, well there's a pretty huge difference between copyright cases in 1984 and copyright cases today: the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and (with few exceptions) it makes it criminal to circumvent DRM. Intent doesn't matter and whether or not you actually infringe copyright doesn't matter. I think it's a bad law, but it is a law and geohot broke it. IANAL, but I would imagine the only defense would be to try to get the la…
Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
And the important bits: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content there seems to be little for Sony to base their case on.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#73Donated a $50 spot.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh, well there's a pretty huge difference between copyright cases in 1984 and copyright cases today: the DMCA. The DMCA is the law and (with few exceptions) it makes it criminal to circumvent DRM. Intent doesn't matter and whether or not you actually infringe copyright doesn't matter. I think it's a bad law, but it is a law and geohot broke it. IANAL, but I would imagine the only defense would be to try to get the la…
Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And the important bits: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,…
As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content
I really don't see how you could read the law you quoted and reach that conclusion.
If you post a tool that breaks DRM and you don't fit into one of the very narrow exemptions (and geohot doesn't), then you broke the law. It doesn't matter if you intended the tool for piracy or if it was "set up for piracy" or if anyone ever used the tool for piracy.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, first, I'm not sure it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone, but to answer your question it's different because the US Copyright office said so. There's a specific exemption to the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA for "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applica…
It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
Sadly this exemption was probably added because some of the government officials involved have jailbroken iPhones for one reason or another.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
Sadly this exemption was probably added because some of the government officials involved have jailbroken iPhones for one reason or another.
The exemption also specifically states that the exemption only applies to "wireless telephone handset" ... "computer software, in the form of firmware or software", where the purpose of the hack would be to enable the lawfully obtained device to operate on a different network than the one it was sold as restricted to. (Designated class C). Class B states that it is legal to build (and distribute?) programs designed for wireless telephone handsets that are legally obtained in their own right (don't reuse code that say Apple developed), but again it is restricted to "Wireless telephone handsets ... connected to a wireless ... network"
Using the letter of the law, PS3 jailbreaking is not covered under those exemptions. The only exemptions relating to video games are to controlled DRM works where a hacker wishes to research security vulnerabilities, but the "information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement". Sony might have a decent case against GeoHot based on this, since he released the keys that enable people to sign custom code that may act as a frontloader to bypass DRM checks for illegally obtained copyrighted code.
Us hackers might consider the differences between a PS3 and an iPhone negligible enough that hacking either is logically the same task, but the DCMA states that they are two separate beasts and hacking one is entirely different than hacking the other. Unfortunately, people need to follow the letter of the law in order to stay out of these kinds of legal challenges, but these legal challenges are also what help craft the law to be fair. I just wish that GeoHot had a better chance at winning this. He should have been thinking about how to cover his ass a long time ago.
DCMA Exemption source [PDF]: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaex...
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
Uh, yeah, I quoted that exemption. But it is NOT an absolute right. If you jailbreak an iPhone for the purpose of e.g. using pirated apps (which I imagine many people are) then you are committing a crime even if you haven't pirated anything yet.
absolutely! if you look back you can see that geohot never intended to enable piracy on the platform
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#78He mentions that the EFF isn't taking on the full load of the case, but maybe he'd get more donations if EFF acted as an intermediary and managed the donations for him. He mentions several times questions like "Why should I trust you?", and his answer, "I'm very ethical", is not that reliable in and of itself. If the EFF sets up a fund, we wouldn't have to worry about suspicions about the use of the money and Geohot…
I agree with you, but I don't think it's a big issue. What Sony is doing is stupid. If I can help stop that, awesome.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather than being hard coded in the law the Copyright Office can add or remove them, however, just because something is not explicitly permitted does not mean it's automatically illegal. The intent seems clear "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." And the important bits: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,…
As long as his work is not directly setup so people can pirate content I really don't see how you could read the law you quoted and reach that conclusion. If you post a tool that breaks DRM and you don't fit into one of the very narrow exemptions (and geohot doesn't), then you broke the law. It doesn't matter if you intended the tool for piracy or if it was "set up for piracy" or if anyone ever used the tool for pira…
There is more than one interpretation of what does and doesn't violate the DMCA, and the 6th and Federal Circuits have taken one approach, which makes the DMCA less applicable to non-piracy activities, in Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components and Chamberlain vs Skylink, while the 9th circuit has taken an approach that makes a wider range of activities violate the DMCA in MDY Indus. LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc.
This is probably a major reason why Sony is trying to sue geohot in California (under the 9th Circuit) despite the fact that the claim that California has personal jurisdiction over him in relation to his Playstation activities is extremely weak.
The plain text of the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" Interpreting this as congress intended is difficult, because often, systems which prevent their owner from doing one thing will also try to prevent their owner from doing other legal activities - for example, installing their own operating system, developing their own homebrew games using only their own copyrighted material, repurposing hardware for purposes that the manufacturer never intended, and building compatible add-on products or accessories that compete with the original vendors products.
I believe the intention of Congress was that circumventing the system only far enough to do one of the above, with the intention of doing one of the above, is not "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected" - for that act to be complete, and the circumvention the act references to occur, the final step of accessing the copyrighted work needs to occur. The interpretation of the 9th circuit is, in my opinion, not what congress intended.
Sooner or later the Supreme Court will hear one of these cases, and hopefully will agree with the 6th and Federal Circuits that the interpretation I gave above is correct.
Re: Geohot seeking donations for legal defense against Sony.
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, first, I'm not sure it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone, but to answer your question it's different because the US Copyright office said so. There's a specific exemption to the anticircumvention provision of the DMCA for "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applica…
It is legal to jailbreak an iPhone in the USA. Jailbreaking was added to a list of exemptions to the DMCA last year. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jail...
But the copyright office still can't absolve you of any "trafficking" charges. That is, you can be liable for distributing circumvention tools for an otherwise lawful act. In other words, you can get blamed for distributing iPhone jailbreak tools.
IANAL and I haven't seen it played out in court, but it's one of the more commonly discussed flaws in the DMCA.
The other fun thing is that exemptions can expire unless they elect to renew them each time.