Quantcast
Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

Forums - Sony Discussion - Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

Yes 158 72.81%
 
No 59 27.19%
 
Total:217
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?


Huh? what?



Around the Network
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?



Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

 

 

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.


Yes, because people already gave Sony money by previosly buying thier games, and once they buy it, they have right to do whatever they want it it. Bleem are using playstation games THEY DO NOT OWN on their hardware and they are making money off of them, because thier customers are attracted by something other company owns. I mean, how could Sony not sue them? It was a great justice that Bleem went bankrup and I salute Sony for taking down those thiefs

What?

So in otherwords, you believe sony owns the games you "buy" as well as the Ps3 then.

Since apparently I can't play the games I buy on whatever system i want.

Your a funny guy.


No, no you can do whatever you want with your games and your PS3 as long as it doesnt effect other users.(cheating, hacking...)  And i am arguing aganst Bleem not agaisnt the user of Bleem. Bleem didnt pay to use those games on their hardware, (which was the selling point of it), the customers on the other hand, already gave Sony money by buying their game and Sony has no ownership over it anymore, so the customer has the right to sell the game back. Bleem, as long as I know, gave Sony absolutely nothing, neither money nor credit


Why would they have to pay to use those games on their hardware?   Sony didn't have to pay to use PS3 games on their hardware.

Bleem actually did buy a shitton of PsS1 games for which to test the emulation...

I mean, how else do you think they tested that?

Sony has to buy thier own games so they can use it on thier own hardware?

No Bleem.  Bleem owned a ton of Sony games.  So they did in fact pay Sony their money, for their games.

Then they created a way to emulate their games on PC.

Then they sold the method to others.

 

No differnet then say... buying a CD.

Developing a way to play the songs on a CD another way.  MP3 player.

Then selling Mp3 players.

 

Mp3 players aren't any different then what Bleem was selling... and piracy is much bigger in the music industry, guess you should be picketing Steve Jobs house.

Oh and Sony.  Sony makes Mp3 players right?


Ugh, Bleem was making a hardware add on that enabled Dreamcast and PC to play Playstation games. Saying Bleem bought few PS games to test them its ok its incredibly stupid argument. They were still atracting customers by property of Sony. They made hardware specificlly to play PS1 games on non-PlayStation systems and thus mkaing money off of them without Sony's permission. And MP3 players are diffrent case. All MP3 players are the same, they can all play all music, there are no brands limitations on MP3. If  some songs could have been played on only one specific  MP3 Sony didnt own, and than later Sony builds up hardware that can play property of other company on thier system and make money off of it, that you would have a point. But all Mp3 players can play all songs, they are diffrent than video game consoles.


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull



pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull


That's not really a justification.  I mean, that's like saying the Japan should have the right to nuke china, because otherwise Japan won't be able to comepete with China's economy.


And no, it isn't exclusive to Sony.  Someone if they wanted could develop a 3rd party system that plays 360, Wii and PS3 games and it wouldn't be against the law.

 

The only difference is, Sony is the only one that's ever sued.


I believe there are commerical emulators out their for either Gameboy or Gameboy Advance.



Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull


That's not really a justification.  I mean, that's like saying the Japan should have the right to nuke china, because otherwise Japan won't be able to comepete with China's economy.


And no, it isn't exclusive to Sony.  Someone if they wanted could develop a 3rd party system that plays 360, Wii and PS3 games and it wouldn't be against the law.

 

The only difference is, Sony is the only one that's ever sued.


I believe there are commerical emulators out their for either Gameboy or Gameboy Advance.

I believe if GB or GBA was still in the market, Nintendo would SUE the peope trying to steal their customers. You have to realizie that PS1 was still selling on the market when Bleem was out.

 

And nuking the country with the biggest world population isnt as extreme as not allowing competition on the market



Around the Network
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull


That's not really a justification.  I mean, that's like saying the Japan should have the right to nuke china, because otherwise Japan won't be able to comepete with China's economy.


And no, it isn't exclusive to Sony.  Someone if they wanted could develop a 3rd party system that plays 360, Wii and PS3 games and it wouldn't be against the law.

 

The only difference is, Sony is the only one that's ever sued.


I believe there are commerical emulators out their for either Gameboy or Gameboy Advance.

I believe if GB or GBA was still in the market, Nintendo would SUE the peope trying to steal their customers. You have to realizie that PS1 was still selling on the market when Bleem was out.

 

And nuking the country with the biggest world population isnt as extreme as not allowing competition on the market


It came out before the DS released.

Also, not as extreme, but just as unresonable, as the only excuse given is "but we can't compete in a fair market."



Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
 


Why?  Because one company decides they want a monopoly?

Huh? what?

There is no inherent reason videogames can't be played on all consoles, outside of the fact that either it's in the consoles liscensing agerement, or the developers don't feel like going through the trouble of making it multi-platform.

There is zero justification for why it should stay exclusive, if somebody can build another platform that would play it.

Are the people at Open Office wrong because they try and provide another system that reads microsoft word only docs?


Well, thats just the way it is, and that ''monopoly'' sure as hell isnt exclusive to sony, otherwise would MS and Nintendo allow their games to be played on other systems,.

As for justification to stay exclusive, all video game consoles have to have their own identity, to make themselfes look diffrent than others, otherwise there would be no competitive market and with no competition the industry wouldnt be as big and succesfull


That's not really a justification.  I mean, that's like saying the Japan should have the right to nuke china, because otherwise Japan won't be able to comepete with China's economy.


And no, it isn't exclusive to Sony.  Someone if they wanted could develop a 3rd party system that plays 360, Wii and PS3 games and it wouldn't be against the law.

 

The only difference is, Sony is the only one that's ever sued.


I believe there are commerical emulators out their for either Gameboy or Gameboy Advance.

I believe if GB or GBA was still in the market, Nintendo would SUE the peope trying to steal their customers. You have to realizie that PS1 was still selling on the market when Bleem was out.

 

And nuking the country with the biggest world population isnt as extreme as not allowing competition on the market


It came out before the DS released.

Also, not as extreme, but just as unresonable, as the only excuse given is "but we can't compete in a fair market."

What came out before DS? And if you cant compete in a fair market, you earn less profits and maybe go out of business, if you cant compete with other countrys economy - well, there are no consequences for that, so no reason to invade anyone



Also, for those who don't think Sony is saying they own your PS3.  I'd suggesting looking at the charges again

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf

In particular "SCEA further allegdges each defendent accessed SCEA's PS3's without Authorization."

Your PS3's are SCEA's property according to Sony, if you live in the US.



Kasz216 said:

Also, for those who don't think Sony is saying they own your PS3.  I'd suggesting looking at the charges again

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf

In particular "SCEA further allegdges each defendent accessed SCEA's PS3's without Authorization."

Your PS3's are SCEA's property according to Sony, if you live in the US.

They are in love with Sony's brand so much they will deny facts. I posted that same link for everyone to see in another topic and all they did was change the subject to geohot and anon being responsible for piracy lol



kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, for those who don't think Sony is saying they own your PS3.  I'd suggesting looking at the charges again

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf

In particular "SCEA further allegdges each defendent accessed SCEA's PS3's without Authorization."

Your PS3's are SCEA's property according to Sony, if you live in the US.

They are in love with Sony's brand so much they will deny facts. I posted that same link for everyone to see in another topic and all they did was change the subject to geohot and anon being responsible for piracy lol

Sony = SCEA ?