Might as well follow up on my last entry - geohot got served with TRO just now.
I read the papers he got served and I'm confused. While I fully expected DMCA to be used at some point... how exactly does SONY get to use it in a CIVIL lawsuit? You can do that in US courts? If so, your legal system is completly wacky.
At first I thought SONY was just trying to present a case, and DMCA was only mentioned to express urgency and necessity of the TRO. You know, like by saying "He is a bad guy, Your Honor, he must be stopped before he does more damage". So I can fully understand statements like "breach of contract" and "interference with contractual relations". This is what SONY claims and must prove - obviously it remains to be seen if they can do that.
But the main reason for ordering TRO was mostly DMCA violation. How the hell does that work? Violating DMCA is penal offence/crime. Someone, please, explain it to me how does SONY get to motion anything in a civil case based on that? And more importantly, how does a judge rule in a civil case with penal law? Because this blows my mind...