The George Hotz Court Order

April 12, 2011 -

As much as George Hotz says that the settlement agreement is confidential, after reading them one can understand why he would want them to remain buried under the veil of confidentiality. According to those court documents, which have now been leaked to multiple hacking sites, and posted on Videogame247, Hotz was the losing party in the agreement.

According to those court documents, Hotz has been put under a "permanent injunction" that forbids him from "trafficking in any technology" that "circumvents any of the TPM’s in any Sony product," including any kind of decryption code or technology. He is also banned from assisting anyone else in such activities, or distributing and knowledge or confidential information related to Sony's products.

His hands are tied and his voice is lost when it comes to any Sony products. Further if he does engage in any activity that he is barred from in the court order, he can be fined $10,000 for each incident, up to a cap of $250,000. Should he violate the order, he also agrees that any further court proceedings will take place in California. In other words he agrees that the jurisdiction is officially California - apoint his lawyers argued against during most of his legal battle with Sony.

If there is one thing Hotz won it was that Sony did not ask that he pay any damages or legal fees. Still, Hotz's legal fees were not for free so he ate those, save whatever money he raised from donations and groups such as the EFF.

You can check out the entire document here. Thanks Andrew Eisen for the tip.


Comments

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

No, what I said was they were afraid of the precedent it would set. I didn't say they were afraid of Hotz. They don't want the DMCA questioned in court, they want what every other copyright case has had, a quick and easy settlement where nothing is challenged and the little guy gets gagged.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

They got NOTHING out of this, in fact they lost. Add up how much money was spent, add up trampling on a persons right to reserve engine hardware and then proclaim be removing a mountain that you have removed all the rocks in the world. Sure they won this battle but the war is not over in fact they have just earned the ire of all the geeks of the world.



Unless the law changes to be less vague and more harsh on such "crimes" Sony has lost.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

Wait, what?

Sony's goal the whole time was to get Hotz to stop distributing information regarding the jailbreak. They got that, and an injunction to where he can never do anything involving the PS3 except using it what it was designed for. Sony never cared about the money. If they did, they wouldn't have accepted the settlement and would have stomped Hotz for violating the DMCA, running him into the ground legally and financially.

They got everything they wanted, whereas the only thing Hotz got was an agreement making it so he doesn't have to pay Sony a dime in legal fees or damages.

Sony didn't trample on anyone's rights. They defended their own from being trampled on.

Your definition of winning and losing is rather... Odd.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

So basicly Sony won big time.  This is little more then a guilty plea....

Plus, professionally, he is pretty screwed.  I know a lot of people have been saying 'he is smart and well known, he will have no problem finding work now!'.. but no.  Most embedded systems companies would consider him a liability, a toxic asset that would be too great a risk to hire.

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

So, life ruined then as he likely won't even be able to get a job at a fast food joint as they'd be too scared for their computers.

Re: The George Hotz Court Order

Considering the first thing he'd probably try to do is "reverse engineer" the computers to add a button that may or may not be labeled "FREE FOOD", yeah. He'd probably be lucky to get a job at a store that uses a touch-tone phone.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will an M rating hurt Batman: Arkham Knight's sales?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleeEh still rather subjective… the haters would be better off going after teen and beauty rags and magazines than fiction, fiction follows reality and going after fiction tends to turn into a bullying fest’s… plus its fiction its unrealistic to start with….02/27/2015 - 1:10am
MechaTama31That's a pretty difficult anatomy to break.02/26/2015 - 11:09pm
MechaTama31"the way her animations repeatedly break her anatomy" <-- I'm sorry, but we are talking here about the woman who can roll up into a little ball and live to tell the tale, yes? ;)02/26/2015 - 11:09pm
Andrew EisenAs far as examples that could be culled from female game characters though, that one's pretty mild.02/26/2015 - 9:11pm
Andrew EisenNot as much the heels or the suit in and of themselves but certainly the way her animations repeatedly break her anatomy to show off her lady bits.02/26/2015 - 9:10pm
E. Zachary KnightWell, Samus's heels are certainly impracticable, but I wouldn't really call her Zero suit objectified. I don't really feel that the new Lara Croft is objectified either, but that is my subjective opinion.02/26/2015 - 9:08pm
Andrew EisenTomb Raider: No but we haven't seen much of anything yet. Samus: Yes.02/26/2015 - 9:07pm
ZippyDSMleeWould you call the new tomb raider objectified? WOuld Samus Aran from the new Smash bros be objectified?02/26/2015 - 9:02pm
WonderkarpI'm hoping they put the rest of the comic book ghostbusters in there. Ortiz and Rookie(From GB the game)02/26/2015 - 8:38pm
Wonderkarpghostbusters board game is doing great. getting close too a 3rd extra playable Character. Ron Alexander.02/26/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenSmurfette is not subjective. If there's more than one female character, it's not Smurfette. Anyway, as with everything on the list, Smurfette is, in and of itself, not necessarily a bad thing.02/26/2015 - 8:32pm
Andrew EisenI think there's 5 women (out of 15, I think) but other than one being a bit more "hippy" than the others, they pretty much all have the same body type. Especially when compaired to the huge variety of male body types.02/26/2015 - 8:31pm
Wonderkarpso I dont see Smurfette as a bad thing. Unless like all your female characters are Smurfette. remember the Smurfs also had Sassette02/26/2015 - 8:29pm
E. Zachary KnightOne good example of the larger issues is one Anita used in the presentation, Blizzard's Overwatch game. There are a dozen men in the game with a dozen body types. But there are only 4 women with 2 body types, but 3 of them have the same one.02/26/2015 - 8:28pm
Wonderkarpthe smurfette thing is subjective to how many female characters you have. Take Sonic for example. You have Amy, who is obvious smurfette, but there's several other female characters now without that. Including the original animated seriescomics with Sally02/26/2015 - 8:28pm
E. Zachary KnightAE. Very true. I think that is where I was going, but it didn't come out right. Jack Harkness is sexy but not objectified. Whereas, a women would have to be objectified in order to be "sexy" in most games.02/26/2015 - 8:26pm
E. Zachary KnightAnd as Andrew pointed out, there is a big difference between a sexualized man, and an idealized man. But for some reason, there is no distinction between women in games. For the most part.02/26/2015 - 8:25pm
Andrew EisenI think one of the issues we run into repeatedly with these conversations is the confusion over "sexy" and "sexually objectified."02/26/2015 - 8:24pm
E. Zachary KnightYet, for some reason, in orde rto have a sexualized women, she must be wearing lingerie or a bikini. Can't women be sexual and still dress for the job at hand?02/26/2015 - 8:24pm
E. Zachary KnightThe problem I have with complaints of "sexualized men" is that men don't have to wear speedos to be sexualized. Captain Jack Harkness from Torchwood/Doctor Who, was one sexy man, but he spent 99% of his time in a WW2 soldier's trenchcoat.02/26/2015 - 8:23pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician