"Sony is also bringing a slew of outrageous Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims.... Simply put, Sony claims that it's illegal for users to access their own computers in a way that Sony doesn't like. Moreover, because the CFAA has criminal as well as civil penalties, Sony is actually saying that it's a crime for users to access their own computers in a way that Sony doesn't like."
Aren't Sony convicted computer hackers for their little cd+rootkit adventure? Did any CEO do time for that?
"According to the proposed settlement, those who purchased an XCP CD will be paid $7.50 per purchased recording and given the opportunity to download a free album, or be able to download three additional albums from a limited list of recordings if they give up their cash incentive."
"The settlement requires Sony BMG to reimburse consumers up to $150 to repair damage that resulted directly from their attempts to remove the software installed without their consent. The settlement also requires them to provide clear and prominent disclosure on the packaging of future CDs of any limits on copying or restrictions on the use of playback devices, and bars the company from installing content protection software without obtaining consumers’ authorization.[34] FTC chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras added that, "Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful. Consumers' computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customer use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content.""
Wouldn't it be wonderful if that court case got cited in this new case? It could both serve to argue against Sony's claim that consumers don't have the right to tinker with their product after sale, and as a demonstration of the importance of giving security researchers freedom to study consumer products.
It looks like Pamela Jones of Groklaw plans to cover this case in full. Based on her reporting, it doesn't look like things are going well for Sony so far:
Does anyone here know what restrictions on the sale of an item are legal (at least in the U.S.)? If I agree to sell you item X given that you promise Y, what are the legal values of Y?
For example, I can't sell you a piece of property with the restriction that you can't sell it to a racial minority in the future. Can I sell you a car with the restriction you are not allowed to look at or tamper with the engine?
Note that I'm not asking whether or not it is good/moral to ask for these restrictions. But what is in fact legal.
You're not allowed to restrict the resale of a house based on race because that specifically violates various laws. But it's common to sell a house with restrictions that apply to you and to all future buyers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant
And the rules are both random and logical in a perverse way.
For example, the terms of a commercial lease can much more exploitative than of a residential lease because a commercial leaser is expected to be more savy about such things.
For example, you can have terms with fine print that allows the landlord to evict tennent without cause AND demand a substantial payment at any time.
I think it's more a question of what kind of restrictions you can put in place without an actual signed contract between the seller and the buyer. Generally speaking, it is harder to enforce non-negotiable contracts of adhesion (ie. most contracts attached to a retail sale) and shrink-wrap contracts/EULAs, but there is currently a lot of uncertainty about it (see Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.), and that uncertainty will probably only be resolved by a major ruling from the Supreme Court or an act of Congress.
the restrictions on the sale of an item depend on the type of item that is being sold and any residual rights that you may retain over that item. as far as i can tell there is no way to analogize between racially restrictive covenants in real estate contracts and the rights to assert certain ip rights over a product that is already sold on its way to downstream consumers.
when you come across a problem that involves this type of intellectual property issue, ask yourself which type(s) of intellectual property are in question (copyrights, patent, trademark etc).
Then, try to figure out what rights an owner of that type of intellectual property has over the item.
Also, you'll have to think about which country's laws apply also because copyright owners' rights are very different in diff countries, ie France vs. the US.
That's a rough type of analysis that you can do to get a feel for the issue.
I don't know what restrictions a seller can have on a sale, but I do know that some products cannot be sold to people who will use them illegally. For instance, in some places shop owners can get arrested for selling tobacco pipes to people who announce they plan on using them for weed.
Not a lawyer, nor do I follow this particularly closely, but - I suspect Sony is framing this as an issue of intellectual property and licensing. The DMCA wouldn't be involved otherwise.
Thanks. That covers some aspects of what I am asking but not the core.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Restrictive_c... covers restrictive covenants on real estate and covers the case of racial segregation that I knew about. Still not quite what I was looking for.
It's interesting that they'd risk the Streisand effect in order to instill fear into people who research these jailbreaks. Granted geohotz research already has significant media coverage, so additional air into the flame wont do all that much. Then again, in the case report it says that Sony wants geohotz research materials (his computers and his site) seized; which may imply that they think they can stop it from propagating. It's hard to say whether this is a weighed decision of Sony's or if it's simply their lawyers going after blood.
"Pour encourager les autres" - they don't care about Goehotz, this is aimed at lots of universities who are now drawing up guidelines about the legal consequence of doing any research into computer security.
If you're Ross Anderson and Cambridge you can tell them to stuff it, if you are a new junior prof at Nowheresville U you might be persuaded to look at a new research area.
50 years ago the oil companies tried similar things to block Clair Patterson's research into lead in gasoline. If Caltech hadn't been so stubborn or there had been a law against analyzing gasoline we would still be breathing lead.
I think this is the best thing that could happen iff a group of lawyers backs up the professors all the way up to the Supreme Court. And of course, they win. I don't think any career politician will ever reverse course on the DMCA. They don't fully understand the implications and they don't want to alienate their campaign donors. Instead, we as a community will have to chip, piece by piece away at the vagrancies of a law which should never have existed in the first place.
It's unfortunate, though, that a few people's lives (the researchers) will be miserable and stressful for the next few years -- just to protect our right to free speech. The researchers deserve kudos for standing up to the bully, but it won't be a fun experience.
One thing, I might do if I ever make crazy dotcom money is create a fund to help/reward people who make stand like this. Even if all I can do is provide them with a nice vacation every year, or hire an assistant to keep it from significantly impacting their day to day life I think it would be a great help.
Agreed, but there are already funds/organizations that do that. I don't know of any that help the people who put their lives on hold while they go through these massive court cases.
Lobbying is almost entirely a question of who has the most money. In this case, it's a .com startup vs. Sony. To follow the analogy, we want to build up an immunity to the disease.
What professors? The only one I know of that is involved is Dave Touretzky, who has only posted a copy of the other's work after they were sued. I do not think they have taken any action against him.
If only Microsoft would be as helpful with jailbreaking the Xbox 360...
Last time I checked, gaming consoles and phones had completely different business models. MS profits for every WP7 phone sold (all three of them) even if the phone manufacturer takes a loss. Sony takes a loss with every PS3 sold and recoups that from every unit of every game sold for it.
It really depends on what the business model is. I'd say no because they are the hardware manufacturer and will be able to subsidize the phone expecting to recover the money with the games, which will, possibly, not run on other devices, despite the Android OS.
I don't see how it's legal for any company to tell me what I do with my hardware once I purchase it.
That's like selling me bread and telling me I can only use it for bologna sandwiches, and that PB & J is against the rules, especially if I tell someone how to make one.
Or someone selling you an operating system and telling you you can only install it on hardware purchased from them. These things are far from uncommon in technology. (I will refrain from mentioning the other example that came to mind because I don't wish to target a specific company to the exclusion of others, since such practices are widespread.)
In all fairness, the PS3 is a very good gaming console.
It was also interesting as a number-crunching machine a couple years back. These days, I think even a modest x86 with a cheap GPU can run rings around it for the same kind of money and much less work.
Aren't Sony convicted computer hackers for their little cd+rootkit adventure? Did any CEO do time for that?