By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Xen on 21 February 2011
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
Xen said:
voty2000 said:
LivingMetal said:

You guys just need to stop making excuses and just see the truth of geohot being a malicious enabler.  Legality, common sense, and his personal actions point towards this.  It's just sad some of you would trade the love of gaming for a vendeta against Sony.  Your loss of character, not mine.


Just listen to the arguments.  It's about consumer rights to use their devices how they want.  Few if anyone are defending piracy, which is illegal.  The majority are defending their right to do what they want with what they bought.  I have no vendeta against Sony because I'm not retarded enough to pledge loyalty to any multi-national gaming company that could care less about me, only my money.  You're the one with loss of character for taking a stance for a corporation that wants to take away consumer rights.  Fight the pirates, not the modders.  It's a simple concept.

He broke copyright code by modifying and distributing his CFW, and what he has made available in face of signing codes for people can easily is, in legal terms, "aiding and abetting".

In other words, he is guilty as sin. Let people do what they want with their devices? Alright. As long as it doesn't compromise others, but hey, that's all it achieved so far. Do whatever you want, however, don't break the law. He did.

Actually, if he's "guilty as sin" chances are that means Sony is too and will lose the Other OS lawsuit.

B. SCEA’S Statements in Hotz.

In Hotz, SCEA sued several PS3 users for injunctive relief and damages in connection with their purported unauthorized access to and copying of SCEA’s proprietary PS3 technology. In the complaint, SCEA claimed privity of contract with the defendant PS3 users, although the users did not purchase their PS3s directly from SCEA, but rather at retail. SCEA’s complaint in Hotz (attached to the RJN as Exhibit A) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant for the following reasons, among others:

(a) On information and belief, Hotz has purposely availed himself of the benefits of this district by doing business with PayPal, Inc., a company located in San Jose, California. Specifically, Hotz has utilized his PayPal account to solicit and obtain financial benefits in connection with the unlawful conduct alleged herein. Hotz is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement (“PSN User Agreement”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On information and belief, Hotz has used software updates delivered by SCEA for one or more PS3 Systems he is using. To obtain such software, users must consent to the terms and conditions of the PSN User Agreement, which require that both parties submit to personal jurisdiction in California and further agree that any dispute arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be brought in a court within San Mateo County, California.

53. All PS3 System users who have used software updates delivered by SCEA for the PS3 System are bound by the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement. A copy of the PSN User Agreement is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. On information and belief, Defendants herein have consented and are subject to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement.

92. SCEA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants agreed to the terms of the PSN User Agreement or similar agreement and entered into that contract or similar agreement with SCEA. The PSN User Agreement or similar agreement is a written contract that limits their use of the PS3 System, related hardware, and related code, including restricting access and governing allowable uses.

97. SCEA has contractual relationships with users of the PlayStation Network.

SCEA further claims in its Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Order to Show Case Re: Preliminary Injunction, and Order of Impoundment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“TRO Motion”), filed on January 11, 2011, that “Hotz is bound by the ‘Playstation Network Terms of Service and User Agreement.’” RJN, Exhibit B. The Court ultimately issued the TRO sought by SCEA. RJN, Exhibit C. Thus, in Hotz, SCEA itself argues that SCEA maintains contractual privity with all PS3 users, which supports plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim, and contradicts arguments made by SCEA in its motion to dismiss that claim.

Maybe I'm stupid, but doesn't that work against him?