Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

From the court order:

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.



This is a proposed court order, written by Sony's lawyers. Even the PDF file name has "proposed" in it. The court can approve, amend or deny it.


If I'm right though, that's only a proposed restraining order? Or do I have the wrong end of the stick?


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.


The "fill in the blanks" bits suggest that pretty strongly, too -

> IT IS ORDERED that SCEA shall post a bond in the amount of $_______ as security...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: