JamaicameCRAZY said:
A) Maybe because no one has thought of it yet. Sony might not be sueing for it at this time however they could in the future. Also you and the other supporters keep saying he has done nothing wrong which is my whole reason and purpose for reply i dont really care about any other dynamics of this situation. Negligence (i also said carelessness)can be sued for so technically that makes it wrong. Also you can be sued for something someone else does its called remoteness and its under the umbrella of negligence one example. For instance, The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.[6] the judge decided that the defendant, a railway, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by scales that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion. A train conductor had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves to travel through the platform. As a consequence, the scales fell.[7] Because Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the train company who employed the conductor for negligence.[8] The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons, written by Judge Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently. i am sure there are more but i really dont need to show every case do i? B) Theres only one way to have your info stolen? C) I do think it is a problem. However you say its some big deal and then later saying its still better than pc and 360 is a little flippy floppy. D) Me being tired of hearing the same drivel means im making stuff up?? what, lol. The only thing i do is give factual info, im not goingto going to make someone look like a bad guy they can do thay themselves i dont need to do that for them. And the reason why i keep saying he is negligent is because he has been and he can be proved that and that would make him in the wrong, which is my whole point he is wrong. And as for the negitives they far outweight the positives. You can seperate the hackers from the homebrewers and if the hackers are decent ones you apparently can ban them. |
A) Hotz isn't an employee of Sony? Again, the only people who can be sued for negligence in this case is.... Sony. You can't sue someone for negligence because someone else might do something illegal with the product of your work.
Also, you REALLY think Sony's entire team of lawyers didn't think of something a random forum poster did?
B) On the PS3? Yes.
C) I didn't say that? I said YOU said it was a big deal. It very much isn't a big deal, though Sony could be sued for negligence for not taking a very simple precaution that EVERYBODY takes.
D) You aren't giving factual information though... everything you said has either been outright wrong "negligence" or an opinion. Sony didn't seperate the hacker from the homebrews. They coded their system so they were one in the same. If you want to blame someone... it's sony.
