IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees,
attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or acting in
concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be immediately temporarily restrained from:
...Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting,
installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any circumvention technology,
products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, component or part thereof...
...Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for
sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the
public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention
Devices...
And a whole lot more. Aside fromt the fact that it seems the corporate world still hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect, the language of this document is worrying. Clearly, the laws were written with commercial theft of IP and industrial espionage/reverse engineering in mind. The linguistic contortions seem to make it clear that the DMCA and CFAA were never meant to be used against hackers, but rather against counterfeiters. It's pretty disturbing that even the courts march lockstep with corporations in stretching the law to serve corporate ends.
edit: As pointed out below, this is a proposed order, not one issued by a judge. Thus, please disregard the last bit about the courts marching in lockstep with corporate interests. I'm appending rather than editing so that the responses make sense.
I think you're right. There's no signature from a judge at the bottom, which suggests this is something they're submitting to the court in the hopes of having it approved. IANAL, so I don't know how that would work.
If you watched the CCC presentation on the PS3, you know these people are more interested in running their own software than breaking the console to play pirated games.
Although I dont agree with SECA, their point of view is that once the console can run "uncertified" software then its only a matter of time before the pirates have their day.
I think that if Sony had just left the OtherOS option in the new consoles, and not removed the support from older ones and maybe improved it by allowing access to the GPU, then this would have taken a lot lot longer since there was no motivation for the hardcore guys
OT, but I haven't seen any rumors of a new generation of consoles. This generation has lasted a lot longer than the previous, and I wouldn't be surprised to see at least another year or two out of them. The addition of the new motion controls (Kinect and PS Move, although I haven't heard really anything about the latter) make it seem even less likely that they'll push for a new console yet.
Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if these motion control addons are research for the next console generation. I've heard of people thinking of Kinect as the next generation of XBox somewhat, and it does kind of make some sense. I don't think we'll reach a stage where motion controls are integral to most games, because even in this generation with the SixAxis on the PS3, most all of the uses of it were one of gimmicks (Mirror's Edge: Use the SixAxis to balance, or just use a control stick. Uncharted: Use the SixAxis to adjust grenade arc...or again, just use a control stick. Ratchet and Clank: Use the SixAxis for two minigames).
No rumors of a new generation? Microsoft and Sony have been pretty open about planning the "Xbox 720" and PlayStation 4 since the current generation launched.
If you mean there's no rumor of the next generation arriving soon, that's true enough. Sony in particular have always stuck to the position that the Playstation 3 is meant to last for roughly a decade, which is why they said they weren't too worried by the fact that nobody wanted a PS3 when the system first came out. We're around the five-year mark now.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply this is the last generation of consoles (that would be ridiculous), just that there isn't one looming in the horizon despite it being the usual 5 year point.
Sony doesn't get a cut when people play games they've made themselves. If people play their own games, then they have less time to play games where Sony does get a cut, so it hurts them in just the same way that pirated games do. This is going to be a problem one way or another as long as the cost of the hardware is subsidised.
Note to Sony lawyers: no doubt you're eager to rack up another billable hour by sending legal threats to me and my university. Before you go down that unhappy road, check out what happened the last time a large corporation tried to stop the mirroring of technical information here: The Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Have you learned anything in ten years?
David S. Touretzky
Research Professor of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
>>> In late December 2010, a hacking
group called FAIL0VERFLOW discovered a way to access certain (but not all) levels of the
PS3 System by circumventing the corresponding TPMs. Id. at ¶16; Bricker Decl. at ¶5, Exh.
D. At that point, hackers were given the tools to run unauthorized and pirated software on
the PS3 System <<<
My understanding is that fail0verflow's exploit didn't enable piracy at all because metldr wasn't being exploited. Anyway, won't this go the way of iphone, where is was ruled that jailbreaking is legal?
Note that phone jail breaking was given a very narrow exemption by the Library of Congress through the terms of the DMCA. It doesn't establish any legal precedent here, and lobbying for such an exemption is a lengthy process.
Morally they seem similar enough, sadly that's not the issue.
One can hope so. It's really dependent on how the DMCA is interpreted. I was wondering where this legal action was when I heard about the exploits.
Shame on Congress for passing the DMCA to begin with. This exploit only furthers cryptography in practice (that is, this will be a lesson in crypto textbooks for generations to come).
They didn't have an exploit: they showed how to get the private keys to sign anything. Much more valuable (for legitimate uses (and piracy)) than geohot's posting of one individual key.
>> First, the PS3 System consists of a “protected computer” because it is used in interstate commerce (e.g., the Internet.) Second, without SCEA’s authorization, Defendants intentionally accessed certain levels of the PS3 Systems by circumventing SCEA’s TPMs in the PS3 Systems. Defendants’ access to such levels in the PS3 Systems is not authorized; to the contrary, the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”) prohibits the circumvention of security features in the PS3 System.
It looks like there is a legal definition of a "protected computer" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_computer), but I can't imagine it was ever intended to apply to one's own computer. Furthermore, how is the PlayStation Network user agreement relevant here? You don't have to agree to anything to buy a PS3, only to use the optional PSN service.
It sounds like they are grasping for straws with that claim. I think that it's likely to get thrown out. If it doesn't get immediately tossed out, or at least defeated in court, then it would be time to worry.
> Close that car hood citizen, there are secrets in there, don't make me taze you.
Auto makers originally tried to prevent car owners from servicing their own cars or taking them to third parties to be serviced. It took a legal struggle and legislation to enshrine the rights of ownership that car owners take for granted.
Or at least took for granted. A new legal struggle is turning around the right to repair modern cars that make extensive use of processors and proprietary software.
Yea. Seriously, don't know why sony is making fools out of themselves - seems like act of desperation. Just move on to innovating a newer version with more security. I guess lot of game developers are not happy with this.
security and fending-pirated-dvds is part of their business model. as you know, sony/microsoft gets commission per dvd they sell. game studios are paying customers for sony and i bet they are up in arms with sony on this.
Sony is always willing to spread the love while I fully understand the desire and drive to reverse and break the security of closed platforms.. grandstanding about your success in a public way traceable to you seems really misguided...
It would seem better to release and wait for the ashes to settle first no?
Should have leaked the keys through wikileaks .. harhar..
But seriously, the fail0verlflow guys had legitimate grounds to exploit the PS3. Sony had taken away OtherOS, effectively crippling the product they had purchased, which was advertised as offering this feature. Imagine instead, what would happen if Sony had taken away the ability to play games?..
But seriously, except for scientific computing, the PS3 was a terrible Linux system, especially for the price. Is this really about restoring functionality, or is it just punishment?
The PS3 is now viable as a new host platform for XMBC (XBox Media Center).
>Then Sony's console business would go bankrupt?
The Music and Movie industries continue to stay in business even in the face of piracy. Wake me up when PS3 pirating comes close to the level of Napster. I'm not justifying piracy, just saying that Sony should be more worried about their real competitors.
"XMBC (XBox Media Center)"
That was my first thought when I read the news of the self-signed code running. I seriously cannot stop reminiscing about the glory days of XBOX1 and XBMC bringing jaw dropping awesomeness to the living room. The PS3 media playback although working perfectly in most SD video using PS3 Media Server, the transcoded DNLA streaming crap for some reason cannot handle fast forwarding / rewind or scene selection. We're talking 1080p playing from a i7 Extreme workstation + gigabit network. XBMC with HD support and Samba access would most likely playback perfectly on a PS3 homebrew build.
Guess it's time to fork git://xbmc.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/xbmc/xbmc but I'd almost prefer to take a wait and see approach with Sony's first salvo against custom firmware users.
Since it involved a group of people doing it, you can't really know what the true motivation behind it was -- but I think removing the otherOS functionality simultaneously gave the movement behind this 2 things:
1) Motivation, attention, and energy (more people hearing about their efforts, offering their help, more passionately)
2) An area to focus their energy on (jailbreaking, or restoring access to homebrew/otheros as a goal)
Another thing to consider is that as far as I know, you should in theory be able to run the system at it's full capacity with the latest hack, whereas anything running on otheros was crippled by default.
Judging from a lot of the comments on this topic and others many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected. When someone creates a platform (Heroku, Facebook, Apple's App Store) they have a right to lock it down. If you don't believe in that don't buy the product!
It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires.
Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"?
What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"?
Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose.
Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"?
Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.
EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law.
If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed?
If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you won't sell them locally; should that be allowed?
If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it under certain circumstances, should that be allowed?
I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market decide. The only role the government has herein is to enforce contracts - what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I want to have my pie and eat it, too?
Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainly what it amounts to).
I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical, especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then quizzes you on the content before selling you the software?
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
That's not what I said. Of course there are things that can't be contractually agreed. I hope you see the difference in moral weight that contracts to commit murder or be someone's slave have when compared to contracts that stipulate certain restrictions on the use of objects, restrictions that don't influence the normal, primary use case of the object.
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party?
I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
Yes, there is. I can't easily present a list, especially not one that shows it for multiple jurisdictions, but EULA's have existed since the 1980's at least and the general concept is well-accepted, in many countries.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!
I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate.
To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.
You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of that copy of the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.
Is it? I buy a PC loaded with Windows. I own the hardware. I have a license to windows.
I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.
Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question.
The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from my Computer Ethics course and from some quick wiki-research[1], most cases revolve around whether the user made reasonably aware that they are agreeing to the contract, and if there is a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract and returning the product.
I can't remember if my PS3 prompted me with a EULA when it first booted up, but it probably did. And I think the ability to return the product for a refund is considered a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract. So it may be legally sound and enforceable, and in that respect I agree.
But it's common knowledge that the pattern of presenting a EULA with a submit button is not enough to make users read the terms of the agreement. Sony is using this fact to their advantage, as do most companies with restrictive EULAs. I'm against restrictive EULAs on principle, but particularly in the case of a physical good like a PS3 restricting you from using it, learning from it, modifying it, etc.
These things are intentionally made unreadable though. I'd be surprised if even people that spend a lot of time reading and encountering legal terms could sit through one unless they were trying to do something unusual and what to cover themselves.
EULA is shown to user, only after purchase is made.
SONY or their authorized retailers should first ask user if he/she agrees to EULA and only then take his/her money. Once you taking money upfront - you agree to any use of your device.
The DMCA explicitly disallows the publication of methods or programs that allow users to circumvent copy protection, from what I recall (not a lawyer). It's not a matter of a private contract, Sony's abuses have been enshrined by IP law, and that's the problem -- the person I was replying to was complaining that we don't believe in copyright generally. I don't think that's true, we just don't believe in copyright so extensive that you are not legally allowed to publish something imprinted on a device you own (even if that is imprinted electronically, like the PS3's encryption and signing keys).
Even so, clickwrap and EULA contracts are pretty lame. If your product must be distributed where end-users are restricted from doing things, then you should create a real contract that each party takes seriously.
"I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations."
It is quite a stretch to extend rules from the above situations, which are clearly contracts between more or less equal partners to corporation/consumer retail, where the balance of power is so heavily skewed against the consumer.
"If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed?"
I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the UK there are a number of legal rights that cannot be signed away. For example, tenancy agreements with illegal clauses are simply enforceable for those clauses, whether it's signed or not. Another example; one cannot consent to Grievous Bodily Harm, even if you really want to (this one was taken all the way through the legal system when someone consented to having a nail hammered through a rather sensitive part of his body).
> Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed.
This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so funny.)
Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
If you want more on the history of copyright in general, I suggest looking up the works of one William Patry. He's written extensively on the subject, was the former general counsel for Google, and now writes on the subject at his blog:
And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I know that line from the preamble of the Copyright Clause, is cited in every discussion about copyright that involves at least one American. But I doubt it's the actual reason.
To come back to my example, the USA PATRIOT act starts with "[An act] to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]" but do you think that's the only reason they passed it?
(I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is a good example, it's just the first I could think of at the top of my head. If you look at some acts that introduce tariffs, you'll probably see more obvious hypocrisy, where it's clear that the act was introduced because some lobbyist got their say.
If you want a simple reason, I doubt you'll find one. Each of the people who agreed to that no doubt had their own reasons for doing so and I honestly don't know if we know what all they are. All I can point you to is what they agreed upon to give as their explanation.
Also, that wasn't the "preamble" to anything, that was the entire Copyright Clause. It's from the list of Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 (the clause itself being clause 8), if you want to check for yourself:
> Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright.
It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _never_ sold for below hardware cost (don't have a reference to hand, sorry); I don't follow the scene enough any more to know the general current position but it's far from a given that hardware sales are subsidised by software.
Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.
Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony).
Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.
What makes most sense probably is for them to restrict use initially when (1) there is a shortage of hardware and (2) the hardware is often being sold at a loss per unit.
When the hardware is not being sold at a loss (which was from day one for Wii, and after years for the others) and the units are readily available so that repurposing isn't preventing gamers from getting them, then dropping all restrictions makes sense. They'll sell more units (which is good for them since the units are profitable per unit) and hence make more money.
"[...] many geeks don't believe intellectual property should be protected."
And also, toilet paper is used to wipe asses. Many geeks indeed do even believe that intellectual "property" is a propaganda term which was coined to make the false impression that a temporary monopoly on information is somehow similar to physical property.
If I buy physical goods, I have an expectation that I completely own it and can do with it whatever I want, and can share my experience completely with others.
What Sony is trying to say is that when you buy a PS3 you are sort of renting it, and they still own what you can and can't do with it. Perhaps because they are selling it at a loss so they can make money when you buy games. I think that in this case they should NOT sell the device to consumers but lease/rent it, because that is the agreement they are really looking for.
It may seem like renting to you, but unfortunately those licensing terms you agree to when you open a package of new hardware or install a piece of software, are legal.
It is a shame, but if you don't agree to it, don't buy and use the product.
Sony, in this case, has strong reasons for wanting to protect their console. Namely because of the contracts they hold with certain chip makers, and because they are expecting profits from playstation games to offset production costs of the console, of which there are none if people are buying loads of them to run their clusters.
If we're only concerned about strict legality, EULAs are on very shaky legal ground. For example, EULAs that you don't sign _before_ buying the product have no legal standing at all in the EU. Sony has already tried suing PSJailbreak in Spain, they lost and had to pay damages.
Not a very clever one liner but I'll bite. My opinion appears to be in the minority on here and possibly elsewhere as well. What gave you the impression that my opinion is so important to the debate as to make it a miracle. I could see if I was a congressman or in government you might think that, but I am not.
Your argument here — against the parent's position that the ideas you're advocating are poorly thought out and impractical — appears to be "I am allowed to have poorly thought-out and impractical opinions because I'm not in the government."
That's not really much of a defense of your position.
It appears to be no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest my opinion was poorly thought out or impractical. I suggested that the parent's position was overstated and that people such as myself have very little to do with public policy.
He suggested that, by pointing out that if the country followed your ideas consistently, libraries would be outlawed even though they're generally regarded as a very good thing. Your rebuttal was that you aren't in the government.
Just because it is a physical product doesn't make it any less protected. So, yes, I am seriously comparing them. If that's all you have to add I can't believe you wasted your time writing that.
It doesn't make it any less protected, but it does change whose rights come into play here. Apple owns the App Store servers, and thus you're violating its property rights if you hack them. I own my computer, so the one with property rights to protect is me.
It's not just "many geeks" that don't believe intellectual property should be protected. The software engineering community in general concludes that treating software like property is illogical and perhaps harmful. At least around where I'm from, software engineers and computer scientists are explicitly taught in their ethics seminars that the entire analogy of "intellectual property" has serious logical and ethical problems inherent in it.
Uh, no. There's no consensus on the ethical or illogical nature of IP. It would be extremely biased and wrong for CS majors or engineers to be "taught" that IP is illogical.
There's a big difference between being supportive of FOSS and believing that intellectual property should not be protected. As far as I can tell the majority of computer scientists and software engineers (even here on HN or on Slashdot) believe that some form of copyright should exist. The problem in the US and the DMCA is with the perpetual extension of term lengths, and the prohibition of tinkering. Software patents, on the other hand, are increasingly opposed in the mainstream.
Let's also not forget that there are generations of geeks that don't care for open source, and don't contribute to it. It is going to be decades before they retire.
Firstly, what I'm saying doesn't necessarily have anything to do FOSS. In a world without IP protection, you could still release/sell software without disclosing the source code. In fact, the GPL for example relies on IP protection laws to even function.
Well, in practice you only get prosecuted if you publish your results on the internet. This guy could have figured out how his stuff works all he wants, and even shown his friends, with impugnity.
I didn't concede my point. Selectively enforced laws are intrinsically evil. Just because they aren't being applied to evil purposes right now is irrelevant.
A gun is designed to kill people, and I can't argue against that fact by claiming that at present guns are only used to crack nuts open with their handles. Just because a gun isn't being used to kill people right now does nothing to make it any less deadly.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hotz and his officers, employees, attorneys and representatives, and all other persons or entities in privity or acting in concert or participation with Defendant Hotz, be immediately temporarily restrained from:
...Offering to the public, posting online, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, distributing, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any circumvention technology, products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, component or part thereof...
...Providing links from any website to any other website selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, promoting, installing, importing, exporting, offering to the public, distributing, providing, posting, or otherwise trafficking in any Circumvention Devices...
And a whole lot more. Aside fromt the fact that it seems the corporate world still hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect, the language of this document is worrying. Clearly, the laws were written with commercial theft of IP and industrial espionage/reverse engineering in mind. The linguistic contortions seem to make it clear that the DMCA and CFAA were never meant to be used against hackers, but rather against counterfeiters. It's pretty disturbing that even the courts march lockstep with corporations in stretching the law to serve corporate ends.
edit: As pointed out below, this is a proposed order, not one issued by a judge. Thus, please disregard the last bit about the courts marching in lockstep with corporate interests. I'm appending rather than editing so that the responses make sense.