theprof00 said:
I just want to be sure my comprehension is sound, so feel free to correct me. You're implying, based on this and past posts in the thread, that these reasons are so much of a stretch that the only logical use would be to pursue the individual IPs? If not, well I kind of agree. I wouldn't call it a stretch, but I wouldn't call it a favorable position either. It's too early to call the case and how this evidence will affect it (even if this succeeds and it moves to CA, a CA judge might find for the defendant). My stance on this is that this is the legal system and the way it works. Maybe IP laws need retooling, or the legal system does, but I don't anything particularly eggregious here specifically. It is reasonable that a company whose product is being cracked should be able to fight back, and I would see non-pursuance of these IPs as self-handicapping. |
It's not really the only logical use, but it's THE most logical use, and most likely use since that's what Sony originally wanted the supeona's for, though were denied specifically because, the codes sony are looking for aren't in of themselves illegal but only illegal when applied to your PS3. The data does have some vague use, though it's not really huge uses.
Think about it this way, Automatic weapons are illegal in the United States. You can order gun modification kits to make guns automatic, from companies. These places never get prosecuted specifically because unless it is used to be modified in an automatic rifle, it's just a bar and an instruction booklet. It's basically impossible to prove large scale distribution. Just as it would be to use the IP logs.
As for, Sony prosecuting the case.
Sure, if they do it in New Jersey.
Though their does need to be reform just based on the fact that coroporations have ridiculious levels of resources.
Afterall the RIAA has pretty much lost every file sharing case that has gone to trial, the issue however is that it rarely reaches trial because the individuals they sue don't have the resources needed to compete with corporate lawyers and stall tactics.
Which is what makes this case a good one in general, that people were more or less willing to give money to him so he could have a *somewhat* fair trial.
Either sony entered this lawsuit without enough proof to convict him or is just trying to drain him of resources. Either way it basically shows Sony's plan was for this to not reach trial.
In otherwords, it's stuff that's vaguely in the framework of the laws, but in general, pretty damn unethical when it would be perfectly possible for Sony to prosecute in an ethical way.
