By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

 

Will Sony sticks its penis in the hornet's nest?

Yes 158 72.81%
 
No 59 27.19%
 
Total:217
DonFerrari on 06 April 2011
kcoward said:
hehey said:
kcoward said:
hehey said:
kcoward said:

Is this a good or bad response towards the hackers? I think Sony would be better off apologising for taking off Other OS and hope the hackers feel sorry for them. Anon is to be taken seriously despite what people think. Sony is in for a very big loss. Judging by Anon's track record they always do what they set out to do.

You dont get anywhere by trying to appease terrorists.

well if Sony think they can do better than a security company good luck to them. all this could have been prevented if they had just left Linux on the PS3. of course they knew they were going to piss off the hackers that paid $600 to only learn that sony take off the feature. also geohot had nothing to do with piracy or cheats on games. all he did was enable homebrew to run to all the people that felt betrayed by sony after they spent $600. piracy and cheats was on PS3 long before geohot hacked it.

Hes an anabler, him and his buddies opening up the PS3 opens the door to piracy and all taht bad stuff.

He and otehr like him are a security risk that SOny acnnot ignore and thats a fact.

I dont think you understand when i typed that piracy and cheats was on the ps3 long before geohot hacked it. What he did probably enabled people to make programs to use pirated games and cheats but that was not his sole purpose. Sony is not sueing him for piracy and if he was a pirate he would be in jail not getting sued. Stop being ignorant immediately I command you. Sony is actually sueing the people that can fix the problem all they have to do is enable Linux on the PS3. Guess its too late for that now cause they are going to make a bigger loss.

Just again what came first, remove of other/os or geohotz divulguing he could hack ps3 using other/os feature?

And I never saw a pirate on PS3 before his actions (or his fellows) like in 2009...

Use your memory, and remember what came first... why would Sony let the Other/OS exist for 3 years and would take it out just on a whim??? It was because they saw it as a threat, the hacking community have policed themselves and kept it just for what it was created no one would be going through this...

Or The Nintendo were pirated because they are so evil and took Linux also? Or malwares and spywares they create it because some people don't use linux in their computers?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 06 April 2011
Mad55 said:

Some of you are defending these guys? their actions wont cause change and why defend something like that it makes you look like a follower who couldnt come up with his/her own solution cause you damn sure werent praising these lames before they took down the websites. and for those of you who say sony should work with these guys to fix the problem wtf we dont negotiate with terrorist lmao well americans dont.


Mot of people who defend them simply just hate Sony, this case doesnt effect them at all, they just like to use every chance they can to bash at them...they are getting quite desperate since about september 09, they need to grab every chance they can



Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:

Time to bust out some good ol' Abe Lincoln for you guys. 

 

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither"


Except theres no sacrifice of liberty- I can still hack my ps3 if I want and do with it what I will


If Sony wins then your PS3 modding could be punishable by law.

Are we talking about the Geohotz case? Because they are only going after him for distribution. 


Not true actually.  I'd suggest reading the charges against him.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf


Just read the nature of the action, they are complaining that they created and distrubted the hack. I don't see anything else.

Unlawful circumvention = what every person who uses his hack would be doing.

The two are lumped together, so its unlikely hacking your ps3 would be charged without distribution. And even so, talk about unenforcable. 

So, your resposne to me showing that he was charged with it... is "He was charged with it, but it's the same lawsuit so it doesn't count."

That's like saying is charged with both Murder and attempted murder, if it wasn't for the murder, there is no proof he'd be charged for attempted murder.

Aside from which, all that matters is that they claim it's illegal.

Whether or not they'd ever enforce it or not, I'd look at the RIIA.

They sue individual pirates all the time for piracy, heck even small time pirates.

It's actually easy money for them, and they have the lawyers on retainer anyway.

 

You just sue individuals, and the indivudals can't fight back since they don't have the resources, and basically instantly settle.

And if they don't, the lawyers stretch out the lawsuit until you do settle... because you don't have the money of a huge corporation.

 

I mean, it's not like Sony don't have a record of sueing people who are doing something legal, and crushing them into the ground because they have money and the people they are sueing don't.


I mean, Bleem, Lik-Sang or whatever the importers were. 

I mean, it's basically Sony's hobby.

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

 

It's just the spurious lawsuit caused them to go out of buisness... cause they can't spend millions opon millions of dollars on legal fees and have no problems.


Which by the way, Sony has spent already over a Million dollars on the Geohotz lawsuit.   Even if Sony was legally right, their way going about it is unbeleivably immoral... and sadly, standard practice for Sony.

Even when they know they're wrong they go out of their way to streatch things out so they drain you of all your resources and fuck you over for even thinking of doing something totally legal that they didn't want you to do.



pizzahut451 on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:

Time to bust out some good ol' Abe Lincoln for you guys. 

 

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither"


Except theres no sacrifice of liberty- I can still hack my ps3 if I want and do with it what I will


If Sony wins then your PS3 modding could be punishable by law.

Are we talking about the Geohotz case? Because they are only going after him for distribution. 


Not true actually.  I'd suggest reading the charges against him.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf


Just read the nature of the action, they are complaining that they created and distrubted the hack. I don't see anything else.

Unlawful circumvention = what every person who uses his hack would be doing.

The two are lumped together, so its unlikely hacking your ps3 would be charged without distribution. And even so, talk about unenforcable. 

So, your resposne to me showing that he was charged with it... is "He was charged with it, but it's the same lawsuit so it doesn't count."

That's like saying is charged with both Murder and attempted murder, if it wasn't for the murder, there is no proof he'd be charged for attempted murder.

Aside from which, all that matters is that they claim it's illegal.

Whether or not they'd ever enforce it or not, I'd look at the RIIA.

They sue individual pirates all the time for piracy, heck even small time pirates.

It's actually easy money for them, and they have the lawyers on retainer anyway.

 

You just sue individuals, and the indivudals can't fight back since they don't have the resources, and basically instantly settle.

And if they don't, the lawyers stretch out the lawsuit until you do settle... because you don't have the money of a huge corporation.

 

I mean, it's not like Sony don't have a record of sueing people who are doing something legal, and crushing them into the ground because they have money and the people they are sueing don't.


I mean, Bleem, Lik-Sang or whatever the importers were. 

I mean, it's basically Sony's hobby.

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

We can use the courts desicion as a mesuare of legality as long it doesnt favour Sony?



Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:

Time to bust out some good ol' Abe Lincoln for you guys. 

 

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither"


Except theres no sacrifice of liberty- I can still hack my ps3 if I want and do with it what I will


If Sony wins then your PS3 modding could be punishable by law.

Are we talking about the Geohotz case? Because they are only going after him for distribution. 


Not true actually.  I'd suggest reading the charges against him.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf


Just read the nature of the action, they are complaining that they created and distrubted the hack. I don't see anything else.

Unlawful circumvention = what every person who uses his hack would be doing.

The two are lumped together, so its unlikely hacking your ps3 would be charged without distribution. And even so, talk about unenforcable. 

So, your resposne to me showing that he was charged with it... is "He was charged with it, but it's the same lawsuit so it doesn't count."

That's like saying is charged with both Murder and attempted murder, if it wasn't for the murder, there is no proof he'd be charged for attempted murder.

Aside from which, all that matters is that they claim it's illegal.

Whether or not they'd ever enforce it or not, I'd look at the RIIA.

They sue individual pirates all the time for piracy, heck even small time pirates.

It's actually easy money for them, and they have the lawyers on retainer anyway.

 

You just sue individuals, and the indivudals can't fight back since they don't have the resources, and basically instantly settle.

And if they don't, the lawyers stretch out the lawsuit until you do settle... because you don't have the money of a huge corporation.

 

I mean, it's not like Sony don't have a record of sueing people who are doing something legal, and crushing them into the ground because they have money and the people they are sueing don't.


I mean, Bleem, Lik-Sang or whatever the importers were. 

I mean, it's basically Sony's hobby.

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

That would be because all previous case law ruled against it.  Unlike the Bleem case that was totally consistant with case law.



Around the Network
pizzahut451 on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:
leatherhat said:
Euphoria14 said:

Time to bust out some good ol' Abe Lincoln for you guys. 

 

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither"


Except theres no sacrifice of liberty- I can still hack my ps3 if I want and do with it what I will


If Sony wins then your PS3 modding could be punishable by law.

Are we talking about the Geohotz case? Because they are only going after him for distribution. 


Not true actually.  I'd suggest reading the charges against him.

 

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/SonyvHotz-1.pdf


Just read the nature of the action, they are complaining that they created and distrubted the hack. I don't see anything else.

Unlawful circumvention = what every person who uses his hack would be doing.

The two are lumped together, so its unlikely hacking your ps3 would be charged without distribution. And even so, talk about unenforcable. 

So, your resposne to me showing that he was charged with it... is "He was charged with it, but it's the same lawsuit so it doesn't count."

That's like saying is charged with both Murder and attempted murder, if it wasn't for the murder, there is no proof he'd be charged for attempted murder.

Aside from which, all that matters is that they claim it's illegal.

Whether or not they'd ever enforce it or not, I'd look at the RIIA.

They sue individual pirates all the time for piracy, heck even small time pirates.

It's actually easy money for them, and they have the lawyers on retainer anyway.

 

You just sue individuals, and the indivudals can't fight back since they don't have the resources, and basically instantly settle.

And if they don't, the lawyers stretch out the lawsuit until you do settle... because you don't have the money of a huge corporation.

 

I mean, it's not like Sony don't have a record of sueing people who are doing something legal, and crushing them into the ground because they have money and the people they are sueing don't.


I mean, Bleem, Lik-Sang or whatever the importers were. 

I mean, it's basically Sony's hobby.

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

That would be because all previous case law ruled against it.  Unlike the Bleem case that was totally consistant with case law.


I got my answer...

So we can use courts desicion as mesure legality as long as its against sony?



Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

That would be because all previous case law ruled against it.  Unlike the Bleem case that was totally consistant with case law.


I got my answer...

So we can use courts desicion as mesure legality as long as its against sony?

I... have no idea what your trying to ask there.

Though yes, case law is against sony in both cases... the youtube supeona is only holding up because nobody has bothered to try and file a motion to quash it and Geohotz actually agreed to let sony look because he doesn't think they'll find anything.

 

To claim otherwise would either be an act of ignroance of the law or illogical support for Sony boardering on fanboyism.



Heavenly_King on 06 April 2011

GO SONY!!!



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

pizzahut451 on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

That would be because all previous case law ruled against it.  Unlike the Bleem case that was totally consistant with case law.


I got my answer...

So we can use courts desicion as mesure legality as long as its against sony?

I... have no idea what your trying to ask there.

Though yes, case law is against sony in both cases... the youtube supeona is only holding up because nobody has bothered to try and file a motion to quash it and Geohotz actually agreed to let sony look because he doesn't think they'll find anything.

 

To claim otherwise would either be an act of ignroance of the law or illogical support for Sony.


You cant say what Bleem did was legal because the court said so and say that Sony taking IPs from web sites is illegal even though the court said otherwise



Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
 

I can see how people think what geohotz is doing is legal, but Bleem? Those motherfuckers deserved to go down, their entire fucking team forever


I can't see how people can think what Bleem did was illegal.  Considering they won in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit

I cant see how people think that Sony getting IPs from youtube and Geohotz s web site is illegal, considering it was approved by the court...

That would be because all previous case law ruled against it.  Unlike the Bleem case that was totally consistant with case law.


I got my answer...

So we can use courts desicion as mesure legality as long as its against sony?

I... have no idea what your trying to ask there.

Though yes, case law is against sony in both cases... the youtube supeona is only holding up because nobody has bothered to try and file a motion to quash it and Geohotz actually agreed to let sony look because he doesn't think they'll find anything.

 

To claim otherwise would either be an act of ignroance of the law or illogical support for Sony.


You cant say what Bleem did was legal because the court said so and say that Sony taking IPs from web sites is illegal even though the court said otherwise

Er, yes I can?  It's called citing case law.

I mean, it's like you don't know how the court system works or how supeona's work.

Supeona's basically ALWAYS err on the side of caution, often to the point of illegal actions when it comes to big companies.  With the theory being, if the people who are being served with supeona care enough about their rights being violated they will file a motion to quash.