By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
slowmo on 26 March 2011
Edit Thread
greenmedic88 said:
slowmo said:
greenmedic88 said:
Grimes said:

Man, how desperate people are to turn this into a thread about cars and guns.

It all stemmed from the fallacious belief that once you buy something, you are free to do anything with it.

When that couldn't be proven by law, the arguments focused on the analogies instead.


In fairness the entire debate is flawed because if it comes down to the simple point of you are only allowed to do stuff that isn't illegal then it brings you back to the beginning of why this case is going to the courts.  Sony believe Mr Hotz actions are illegal, he maintains they aren't, one of these entities is going to be proven wrong and that will this end the debate on here regardless of who is morally right.

Regardless of how the civil suit turns out, I really don't see how this determines anything in terms of "morality," just legal liability. Apples and oranges. If Hotz didn't commit perjury regarding the PSN account, taking "donations" for his work, illegally procuring or distributing ROMs, source code or materials, etc. and he really believes what he's doing by his perspective is some sort of moral obligation to distribute this information for the public benefit, then I don't see how his being found liable by a court proves he was "morally" wrong.

On the other hand, if there are any inconsistencies that contradict his binding statements, either he has selective memory, he's a sociopath or he was knowingly committing perjury in an attempt to avoid the consequences of his actions. In any of those instances, regardless of whether the courts rule in his favor, he'd still be morally wrong, even if he wasn't found liable by law.

As I said, it is determing what is legal regardless of the morality side of the debate.