Sony’s War on Makers, Hackers, and Innovators

[JamaicameCRAZY]

Kasz216 said:

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.

A) Do i have to find an example for every situation you come up with? First it was "You can't be sued for negligence for something someone else does" i show you an example now its someone might do something illegal with your work use your imagination.

"The basic rule may be stated positively or negatively. If the damage

would still have occurred, even if the defendant had not broken the

duty of care, then the breach did not cause the damage. If the

damage would not have occurred

 

but for the defendant’s breach of

duty, then the breach of duty is a cause of the damage. For this

reason, the basic rule is often referred to as the ‘but for test’. Its

main purpose is to exclude things that have no bearing on the

damage. It is for the claimant to show that the breach of duty was

the cause of the damage, and not for the defendant to show that

the breach of duty was not the cause of the damage."

 

 

Granted the exploit was there but he showed it off and is the direct cause of the damage no one else is responsible. Also he can be charged with Accessory.

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.

B) so i cant hack into the servers where the infomation is and get it that way? i am done with this subject it has nothing to do with my point.

C) Not everybody and yes they can, also your the one that brought it off to hold over my head the fact that i said he can be charged with negligence. Again i am done with this it isnt part of my point.

D) Almost everything that has been stated by you or i has been opinion. I atleast insert actual quotes for factual information you on the other hand art trying to belittle or say that actual cases wouldnt apply when they would.