Sony vs Hotz: Will The Real "Blickmaniac" Please Stand Up

[grasshoppa420]

Hacking a console is one thing... But if it's determind that he hacked his Playstation COMPUTER then Sony has no chance....

And the ToS also states that no alteration to SOFTWARE can be made before accessing. Again, 'unlocking' your Playstation computer's hardware isn't a violation of that.

Hence the change from SCEA to SNEA. They knew even their name was screwing there case.

[turkey]

I believe you are referring to the Autodesk case? In that instance, the court ruled that you don't own the software. Vernor is still in the process of appealing that one and it will probably go all the way to the supreme court.

Our court system is a farce. Cases like this prove that.

is that not to do with digital distribution vs physical distribution.

Where the license was provided to you electronically that is not transferable, but had they printed it on the cd case then it was? In the EU anyhow, but its not fully tested in the courts but many companies who sell second hand software seem to follow that method and are still trading.

[Diverge]

The whole thing about PSN is a bunch of bullshit anyway. It's a separate service. You don't need it to use a PS3. It's ridiculous they can try to use that to prove jurisdiction in California. He didn't hack PSN!

[Dulousaci]

is that not to do with digital distribution vs physical distribution.

Where the license was provided to you electronically that is not transferable, but had they printed it on the cd case then it was? In the EU anyhow, but its not fully tested in the courts but many companies who sell second hand software seem to follow that method and are still trading.

In the Autodesk case, the court originally ruled that Vernor had the right to resell his software because he owned it. Autodesk won on appeal, saying that he didn't buy the software, just a nontransferable license to use it, but that may also be overturned by a higher court.

EULAs are typically not very powerful because they are only shown after purchase and the user usually can't return the opened software. The Autodesk case is breaking precedent (and common sense) by stating that the license you only see after purchase applies before you agree to it. It is ludicrous.

[grasshoppa420]

... The Autodesk case is breaking precedent (and common sense) by stating that the license you only see after purchase applies before you agree to it. It is ludicrous.

Like geohot's still sealed warranty and agreement information submitted in court.

Blindly agree to their terms dammit!

GH

[pip]

the playstation is made by sony japan and so is the software, scea's argument is that they are in charge of it in the usa and now they are giving up thier rights to it and transfering it to a new company that did not exist when the system is hacked.

how can scea still claim harm?
we know snea can't because it was hacked before that company even existed.

[psnplay]

is that not to do with digital distribution vs physical distribution.

Where the license was provided to you electronically that is not transferable, but had they printed it on the cd case then it was? In the EU anyhow, but its not fully tested in the courts but many companies who sell second hand software seem to follow that method and are still trading.

Where I am from it has actually been tested in courts, too, with the result that no matter how the license was obtained or what the EULA says it is your if it was sold as a product, not as a license; it must be made clear up-front if you are signing in for a license. If it is however sold and advertised as a regular product then it is by all relevant laws a separate product and thus all ownership for that particular product are on the buyer.

(And no, please don't start with the "but then he can sell copies of it!": it just shows how little you understand about copyright law. Ownership of a particular copy of a product != ownership of its copyright.)

As far as I am aware this same view on the law applies to most European countries, though there are obviously a few exceptions. It is quite different to how the US laws treat these things: there something sold to you can still be a license to use it even though it is wholly advertised and sold as a complete, separate product. That is what undermines consumers' rights so deeply.

[psnplay]

Hacking a console is one thing... But if it's determind that he hacked his Playstation COMPUTER then Sony has no chance....

It's more complicated than that. First of all, Sony tries to argue that PS3 is indeed not a computer so Sony can avoid paying taxes for computing equipment. If the court rules it is indeed a computer then they will end up having to pay enormous amount of taxes. You can bet they will do anything they can to avoid that.

But if PS3 is indeed declared a computer it will not help Geohot in any way. This is still about DMCA and Geohot clearly did circumvent copy-protection schemes. DMCA does apply to computing equipment just as it does apply to any other electronics.

And the ToS also states that no alteration to SOFTWARE can be made before accessing. Again, 'unlocking' your Playstation computer's hardware isn't a violation of that.

You cannot "unlock" PS3 hardware without altering the software. Ergo your point is moot.

[corpse101]

We definately need a I am Sparticus moment across all the net... Everyone post on every website you know of and create an account and post saying "I am BLICKMANIAC!"

[carniver]

Sony tries to argue that PS3 is indeed not a computer so Sony can avoid paying taxes for computing equipment. If the court rules it is indeed a computer then they will end up having to pay enormous amount of taxes.

You got it the other way around. Computer = no taxes, Console = taxes

But if PS3 is indeed declared a computer it will not help Geohot in any way. This is still about DMCA and Geohot clearly did circumvent copy-protection schemes. DMCA does apply to computing equipment just as it does apply to any other electronics.

Which copy-protection schemes did Geohot circumvent?