Sony’s War on Makers, Hackers, and Innovators

[JamaicameCRAZY]

Kasz216 said:

JamaicameCRAZY said:

Kasz216 said:

 

A) Do yourself  a favor look up "Duty of Care".  In particular, California.  You will see why Sony can't sue for this.  Not only would Sony lose, but they would look exremely bad doing it.

The biggest loss would be "the feasability of alternate conduct".  Since there was no way to unlock the features outside of this, there would be no "feasability of alternate conduct", and in general other alternate conduct issues.

Also, sony would have to definitivly prove they were harmed.  Which you can't, because most studies tend to show that even piracy has no discernable effect on the industry.

They'd have to prove without a shadow of a doubt it was done for immoral reasons. Likely a loss since most college proffesors and the like are on Hotz side and more then willing to talk about it, and all anyone has to believe is that HE thought it was the right thing to do.

They would have to prove that punishing him will prevent future harm. (tough when you can't find past harm.)

Also, that they would have to prove he could of done it safer.  Which you really can't argue with hacking because he doesn't have completel knowledge of the subject.

Prove that reasonable people wouldn't do the same in his place... again with over half the gaming community behind him, most academics and most tech people... not going to do.

So no... he can't be sued for that, nor can most if not all people be sued for something someone else does, without very very very specific guidelines being followed.  In general it is a VERY specific crime, otherwise everybody would get sued for it.

B) You can, it has nothing to do with Gehot though.

C) No, he can't.

D) No, i've actually corrected quite literally your mistaken comments.

 

California has developed a complex balancing test consisting of multiple factors which must be carefully weighed against one another to determine whether a duty of care exists in a negligence action. The underlying facts are universalized and analyzed in the larger context of general public policy.[5] The original factors as stated in 1968 were as follows:

• the foreseeability of harm to the injured party;
• the degree of certainty he or she suffered injury;
• the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered;
• the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct;
• the policy of preventing future harm;
• the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty of care with resulting liability for breach;
• and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.[6]

A 1997 case added to this:

• the social utility of the defendant's conduct from which the injury arose.[7]

As far as i have read the

Exactly.  They basically can't prove any of those.

It's good your finally starting to understand.

reread it. accidently hit the button early. btw is you avatar you if so my wife said looks like im having a discussion with myself.