Do you think Sony regrets going after George Hotz now?

[Kynes]

JazzyJeez said:

Kynes said:

fps_d0minat0r said:

Kynes said:

fps_d0minat0r said:

Kynes said:

fps_d0minat0r said:

...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board

exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.

You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.