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
pizzahut451 on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
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.


And you think what Bleem did wasnt illegal but Sony taking IPs was? If what Sony did actually was illegal than that supeona would be filled agaisnt Sony (correct me if it is



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
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.


And you think what Bleem did wasnt illegal but Sony taking IPs was? If what Sony did actually was illegal than that supeona would be filled agaisnt Sony (correct me if it is

Again, your coming off as kinda incoherent and sloppy here.  I'm not sure what your trying to ask.



DonFerrari on 06 April 2011
kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Alright, so me and other gamers might end up without the PSN because some group decides that Sony infringes on their rights?

To all you consumer rights people on here, how does that help me and the other millions of consumers rights who buy a PS3 to play games?

That's kinda like asking how it helps people who want to get an education, when a building gets shut down because of a protest.

The answer?  Stop thinking so short term.


So I'm thinking short term because I can't see how this will help the majority of PS3 owners in any way? Assuming this group gets whatever they want ( I assume Linux and freedom to hack their PS3s), thats a small minority of PS3 Gamers.

A)  A minorities rights are worth a damn because they inconveince the majority.

Seriously, this is the arguement you want to go with.


B) It goes on much past that however, since the legal arguement sony has applied is they can literally do anything they want to your PS3 to make you buy a new one.

Including removing things like Blu-ray playback or intentionally brick yours for no reason if they feel like it.

According to Sony, it's perfectly legal for them to brick out of warranty consoles at will, randomly for whatever reason.  If you can't see why that should be illegal... well ok.

I don't know what to say.

Most of them have not done any research on the situation. If Sony wins the Geohot case all the Sony products you bought will still be owned by them and they can do as they please with it. Thats the reality of the situation and it seems people could not be bothered.


Where in the process Sony justified that they own the products GeoHotz bought and therefore they can get them back anytime they want??

It's more like, "we designed it, he is giving secrets that enable people to do malicious thing we want him to stop".

Enlightnen me own how Sony winning about not hacking their device equals they owning mine PS3?



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."

Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
DonFerrari said:
kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Alright, so me and other gamers might end up without the PSN because some group decides that Sony infringes on their rights?

To all you consumer rights people on here, how does that help me and the other millions of consumers rights who buy a PS3 to play games?

That's kinda like asking how it helps people who want to get an education, when a building gets shut down because of a protest.

The answer?  Stop thinking so short term.


So I'm thinking short term because I can't see how this will help the majority of PS3 owners in any way? Assuming this group gets whatever they want ( I assume Linux and freedom to hack their PS3s), thats a small minority of PS3 Gamers.

A)  A minorities rights are worth a damn because they inconveince the majority.

Seriously, this is the arguement you want to go with.


B) It goes on much past that however, since the legal arguement sony has applied is they can literally do anything they want to your PS3 to make you buy a new one.

Including removing things like Blu-ray playback or intentionally brick yours for no reason if they feel like it.

According to Sony, it's perfectly legal for them to brick out of warranty consoles at will, randomly for whatever reason.  If you can't see why that should be illegal... well ok.

I don't know what to say.

Most of them have not done any research on the situation. If Sony wins the Geohot case all the Sony products you bought will still be owned by them and they can do as they please with it. Thats the reality of the situation and it seems people could not be bothered.


Where in the process Sony justified that they own the products GeoHotz bought and therefore they can get them back anytime they want??

It's more like, "we designed it, he is giving secrets that enable people to do malicious thing we want him to stop".

Enlightnen me own how Sony winning about not hacking their device equals they owning mine PS3?

Sony is sueing him for circumventing and hacking into his own PS3.   This has already been covered in the thread, via shown court documents.

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



DonFerrari on 06 April 2011

What is the best part about the "security researchers"...

After their discoveries and releases of the holes i never see a increase of Security, but in place I see even more sploits... so they are researching how to strenghten security or weaken it??? Yes they are just saints fightning for us.



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
DonFerrari on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:
kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Alright, so me and other gamers might end up without the PSN because some group decides that Sony infringes on their rights?

To all you consumer rights people on here, how does that help me and the other millions of consumers rights who buy a PS3 to play games?

That's kinda like asking how it helps people who want to get an education, when a building gets shut down because of a protest.

The answer?  Stop thinking so short term.


So I'm thinking short term because I can't see how this will help the majority of PS3 owners in any way? Assuming this group gets whatever they want ( I assume Linux and freedom to hack their PS3s), thats a small minority of PS3 Gamers.

A)  A minorities rights are worth a damn because they inconveince the majority.

Seriously, this is the arguement you want to go with.


B) It goes on much past that however, since the legal arguement sony has applied is they can literally do anything they want to your PS3 to make you buy a new one.

Including removing things like Blu-ray playback or intentionally brick yours for no reason if they feel like it.

According to Sony, it's perfectly legal for them to brick out of warranty consoles at will, randomly for whatever reason.  If you can't see why that should be illegal... well ok.

I don't know what to say.

Most of them have not done any research on the situation. If Sony wins the Geohot case all the Sony products you bought will still be owned by them and they can do as they please with it. Thats the reality of the situation and it seems people could not be bothered.


Where in the process Sony justified that they own the products GeoHotz bought and therefore they can get them back anytime they want??

It's more like, "we designed it, he is giving secrets that enable people to do malicious thing we want him to stop".

Enlightnen me own how Sony winning about not hacking their device equals they owning mine PS3?

Sony is sueing him for circumventing and hacking into his own PS3.   This has already been covered in the thread, via shown court documents.

Exactly... and this doesn't equal Sony owns my console, just means that I can't do with it things that can harm others.



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."

Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
DonFerrari said:

What is the best part about the "security researchers"...

After their discoveries and releases of the holes i never see a increase of Security, but in place I see even more sploits... so they are researching how to strenghten security or weaken it??? Yes they are just saints fightning for us.


Why someone is hacking their own propery really shouldn't matter at all.



Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:
kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Alright, so me and other gamers might end up without the PSN because some group decides that Sony infringes on their rights?

To all you consumer rights people on here, how does that help me and the other millions of consumers rights who buy a PS3 to play games?

That's kinda like asking how it helps people who want to get an education, when a building gets shut down because of a protest.

The answer?  Stop thinking so short term.


So I'm thinking short term because I can't see how this will help the majority of PS3 owners in any way? Assuming this group gets whatever they want ( I assume Linux and freedom to hack their PS3s), thats a small minority of PS3 Gamers.

A)  A minorities rights are worth a damn because they inconveince the majority.

Seriously, this is the arguement you want to go with.


B) It goes on much past that however, since the legal arguement sony has applied is they can literally do anything they want to your PS3 to make you buy a new one.

Including removing things like Blu-ray playback or intentionally brick yours for no reason if they feel like it.

According to Sony, it's perfectly legal for them to brick out of warranty consoles at will, randomly for whatever reason.  If you can't see why that should be illegal... well ok.

I don't know what to say.

Most of them have not done any research on the situation. If Sony wins the Geohot case all the Sony products you bought will still be owned by them and they can do as they please with it. Thats the reality of the situation and it seems people could not be bothered.


Where in the process Sony justified that they own the products GeoHotz bought and therefore they can get them back anytime they want??

It's more like, "we designed it, he is giving secrets that enable people to do malicious thing we want him to stop".

Enlightnen me own how Sony winning about not hacking their device equals they owning mine PS3?

Sony is sueing him for circumventing and hacking into his own PS3.   This has already been covered in the thread, via shown court documents.

Exactly... and this doesn't equal Sony owns my console, just means that I can't do with it things that can harm others.

Hacking into your own PS3 doesn't hurt others?

And yes... it DOES say you don't own your console.

If sony didn't claim this, it couldn't pursue this lawsuit.



Euphoria14 on 06 April 2011
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:
kcoward said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:
Kasz216 said:
Tigerlure said:

Alright, so me and other gamers might end up without the PSN because some group decides that Sony infringes on their rights?

To all you consumer rights people on here, how does that help me and the other millions of consumers rights who buy a PS3 to play games?

That's kinda like asking how it helps people who want to get an education, when a building gets shut down because of a protest.

The answer?  Stop thinking so short term.


So I'm thinking short term because I can't see how this will help the majority of PS3 owners in any way? Assuming this group gets whatever they want ( I assume Linux and freedom to hack their PS3s), thats a small minority of PS3 Gamers.

A)  A minorities rights are worth a damn because they inconveince the majority.

Seriously, this is the arguement you want to go with.


B) It goes on much past that however, since the legal arguement sony has applied is they can literally do anything they want to your PS3 to make you buy a new one.

Including removing things like Blu-ray playback or intentionally brick yours for no reason if they feel like it.

According to Sony, it's perfectly legal for them to brick out of warranty consoles at will, randomly for whatever reason.  If you can't see why that should be illegal... well ok.

I don't know what to say.

Most of them have not done any research on the situation. If Sony wins the Geohot case all the Sony products you bought will still be owned by them and they can do as they please with it. Thats the reality of the situation and it seems people could not be bothered.


Where in the process Sony justified that they own the products GeoHotz bought and therefore they can get them back anytime they want??

It's more like, "we designed it, he is giving secrets that enable people to do malicious thing we want him to stop".

Enlightnen me own how Sony winning about not hacking their device equals they owning mine PS3?

Sony is sueing him for circumventing and hacking into his own PS3.   This has already been covered in the thread, via shown court documents.

Exactly... and this doesn't equal Sony owns my console, just means that I can't do with it things that can harm others.

Hacking into your own PS3 doesn't hurt others?

And yes... it DOES say you don't own your console.

If sony didn't claim this, it couldn't pursue this lawsuit.

Some people seem to believe that just because you have something in your hands means you own it.

To me owning something means I can do whatever I wish to do with it, even modding the hardware or software.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Kasz216 on 06 April 2011
Euphoria14 said:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:
 

Exactly... and this doesn't equal Sony owns my console, just means that I can't do with it things that can harm others.

Hacking into your own PS3 doesn't hurt others?

And yes... it DOES say you don't own your console.

If sony didn't claim this, it couldn't pursue this lawsuit.

Some people seem to believe that just because you have something in your hands means you own it.

To me owning something means I can do whatever I wish to do with it, even modding the hardware or software.

Which is why you have to sign a liscense agreement after you buy a PS3 anyway, because you don't own it.  Of course, the issue is you can't really force people to sign liscense agreements about their products after they purchased it.

 

It's why in the Other OS lawsuit, SCEA is argueing that they aren't responsible for everything involving PS3s in the US because SCEI removed everything!

Although confusing, since SCEA is argueing in the Hotz case that they are responsible for everything involving the PS3 and it's firmware and therefore their lawsuit in California shouldn't be dismissed.

 

So... yeah.  Nothing like argueing completely contradictory points at the EXACT SAME TIME to show that you know you're wrong in at least one of the lawsuits your involved in... and are just trying to weasle things to your advantage.