By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 25 February 2011
Edit Thread
deskpro2k3 said:
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.

One pirated game is enough to hit almost all those bullets. All the efforts such as the removal of other OS etc, was to prevent piracy. bypassing the security in the software is pretty much opening a pandora box.

Limewire for example was taken off the grid for pirating music, and movies. I think the same should apply but this was a NY case I believe. Anyways I'm going back to Persona 3 Portable. Catch'ya punks later.

No it's not?  Considering research generally shows piracy doesn't hurt the industry... they would lose that pretty hard... and that's not even the trickier issues, such as moral blame which is pretty hard to asses when he's trying to unlock things legally that sony is locking out.

Furthermore, all this needs to be proved under the "reasonable man" arguement.  What would a "reasonable man" do in this situation.

Would a resonable man, looking for the outcome he was, do what he did?  Well yeah.