Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

January 14, 2011 -

Wired reports that Sony's lawsuit against PlayStation 3 hacker George Hotz hit a snag today when a federal court judge questioned whether California was the right jurisdiction to hear the case.

Sony sued Hotz on Tuesday, alleging that when Hotz posted the code to crack the PlayStation 3, he breached the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions. Sony asked the court to compel Hotz to remove any code he uploaded last week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said she had concerns about whether or not the lawsuit should be tried in her courtroom. She also wondered if New Jersey, Hotz' home state, would be a better venue to try the case - after all, this was where Hotz' conducted most of his internet activities.

"I’m really worried about the jurisdictional question," the judge said from the bench during a 20-minute hearing - reports Wired.

Attorney James Gilliland Jr., representing Sony, argued the case should proceed in San Francisco because Hotz posted the hack using Twitter and YouTube, and that he had received donations via PayPal. Hotz’ attorney denied the allegation that he ever received donations.

By that logic, the judge countered, "the entire universe would be subject to my jurisdiction."

Gilliland countered that the PlayStation 3's terms-of-service agreement requires that all legal disputes be settled in federal court in California.

"Serious questions have been raised here," the judge said, adding that she would rule at a later date.

We'll continue to follow this story as it develops.


Comments

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

The PlayStation Network agreement stipulates this.  That's the entire basis for the jurisdiction argument, as I understand it.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the PSN.  Hotz didn't use any PSN code in his hack, and he doesn't even have a PSN account.  He never would have agreed to those terms at any point.  Sony is full of shit on this one, though that's not surprising.

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

Strange, I didn't know that corporations could dictate to judges whether they should be trying a case or not through paperwork the judge wasn't even aware existed. I thought it was about the jurisdiction under law, not what the Corporation wants, that defined these things?

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

My thoughts exactly. I can understand that clause in the user agreement working in Sony's Defense when someone sues sony, but how could it possibly work in favor of sony sueing someone else.

Sounds like a clause the RIAA would use to prevent poor people from being able to travel to mount a defense.

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

Part of the case probably concerns a breach of the EULA, and the jurisdiction clause contained within it would apply; and might allow Sony to make the claim in that jurisdiction. Essentially both parties have agreed to resolve any dispute in a particular jurisdction in the contract itself.

However, the claim under the DMCA would not be affected by the jurisdiction clause and that may be why the judge is nervous over taking that claim wihtout proof as to her jurisdiction in the matter.

Gus

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

I wasn't aware that the RIAA could do that, even though it makes sense.

 - W

Consumer responsibility is just as important as Corporate responsibility. So, be responsible consumers.

Re: Sony Hits Snag in PS3 Hacker Court Case

I can't say for sure that the RIAA lawyers have done this, they just came to mind, but it is a well known legal strategy, and it's been used LOTS.

You live in New York

Someone you want to Sue lives in Australia.

You sue them in the state of new york, knowing they cannot come to defend themselves.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameohh, gods that game is pretty, just not my style these days07/29/2015 - 11:49pm
Andrew EisenUbisoft's Child of Light.07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
MattsworknameEnjoy man, Im gonna be playing split second myself07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
Andrew EisenSorry. That just slipped out. Off to play.07/29/2015 - 11:43pm
Andrew EisenWords have meanings, people! Use the damn dictionary! They're online! They're free! Arrggghhhh!07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Andrew EisenThis is just depressing. I'm gonna go play video games.07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Mattsworknameproliferation of the whole "internet movment" thing, people dont debate, they try to attack and go after peole to shut them down, casue it's easier then trying to debate the issues07/29/2015 - 11:39pm
MattsworknameWhen you break it down, what it is is the shifting of the media lanscape and how it effects news sites and other groups. once upon a time, you could have run that same article and it would have created debate, not online campagns, now, cause of the07/29/2015 - 11:38pm
MattsworknameCall it waht you wil, but thats how its viewed, not just by me, but by just about EVERYONE right now. Media, new networks, they dont' want to call it what it is, soe they call it "accountability"07/29/2015 - 11:34pm
Andrew Eisen"Gamasutra... had to pay" Yes. That's EXACTLY what it was. "Accountability" is and always was horse poop.07/29/2015 - 11:29pm
MattsworknameSo to speak07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
MattsworknameThats why this happened, you get people who felt hurt, marginalize, bettrayd, or otherwise offended, and they don't actually look at teh facts, they just attack and try to get there Blood for Blood07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
Mattsworknamefalse. Weather you think the article was right or not, there was a large group who felt taht gamastura and the other media sites had to pay for there actions, weather they deserved it or not07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenTrying to yank advertising over a single opinion piece on a site that I would bet money most of the offended (if you will) didn't read, is no more an attempt at accountability than the Brown shooting's subsequent riots.07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameMy point andrew is that it's not about them, its about the people responding to the situation. THe brown shooting was eventually shown to be completely justified, but the "Black lives matter" meme kept on rolling despite all it's intiall claims being07/29/2015 - 11:26pm
Andrew EisenDude, you're comparing an opinion piece with someone who was shot to death. Gamasutra and Alexander already were accountable for the opinion piece in question.07/29/2015 - 11:25pm
Mattsworknamekinds of events. nor has it stopped them from being asshats in my opinion, but in there view, they have to hold someone accountible for recent events, so they are doing what they think they must, even if it's based on falsehoods07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
MattsworknameAndrew: It's really a matter of context for the people involved. For example. The "Black lives matter" thing is based on an entirely false account of events in the brown shooting, but that hasnt' stopped it from triyng to hold Polititcians accountable for07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
Andrew EisenWouldn't surprise me. A lot of words' actual meanings escape many people on the internet.07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
Andrew EisenSo, "they must be held accountable" means "we must hurt them for publishing an opinion piece we don't like."07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician