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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 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:
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.

Do you think that making money off Sony PlayStation games (without the permission from Sony) its ok but getting IPs to prove people used Geohotz code is not?



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

As long as it doesnt effect other users...in this case it does



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

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.

Do you think that making money off Sony PlayStation games (without the permission from Sony) its ok but getting IPs to prove people used Geohotz code is not?

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.



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

As long as it doesnt effect other users...in this case it does

And it matter, your rights ends when you interfere with other people rights isn't it? And he didn't just hacked, he released information without concern about the output.



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:
Kasz216 said:
DonFerrari said:

So i'm talking from my ass... but even so the Judge is still to decide where is the right jurisdiction... maybe the judge don't know anything about law also.

They haven't had the Jurisdiction hearing yet.

Sony is looking for a shitload of discovery to try and prove that Hotz has connections in Califronia or a PSN ID to prove it belongs there.

As it is, the case is expected to be dismissed.

Expected is different than granted. And if I'm talking from my ass (how polite) then the judge could immeadtly denny subpoena and all measures to prove venue, as he can't give that...

So maybe you should be the judge of the case since you are more unbiased and knwlodgeable than all of them and us.

Actually, he could have denied it, but didn't.  He decided to allow Sony to try and tie him to California, largely because if he had a PSN account he would have agreed to be tried there and a lot of people have PSN accounts.

Your suggesting Sony could of decided to charge him in Burssels if he feels like, which is stupid... because they can't.


It's unethical for them to charge him where they are charging him, because they could charge him in NJ just fine, and have no basis for charging him where they are, except they feel like it because they are there, and there are enough other people who own a PS3 for them to go on a fishing expeditition to waste time and money.

They are afterall charging him with a federal crime.  What state it's in shouldn't matter to them.

 

Not to mention the whole, spending millions of dollars to pursue one kid.



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

As long as it doesnt effect other users...in this case it does

And it matter, your rights ends when you interfere with other people rights isn't it? And he didn't just hacked, he released information without concern about the output.

How is that interfereing with other peoples rights?  You do know it's perfectly legal to post the blueprints for a nucelear bomb online right?


How to build a Nuclear bomb >  How to run homebrew (but not pirated games!) on your PS3. 



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

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.

Do you think that making money off Sony PlayStation games (without the permission from Sony) its ok but getting IPs to prove people used Geohotz code is not?

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)



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

As long as it doesnt effect other users...in this case it does

And it matter, your rights ends when you interfere with other people rights isn't it? And he didn't just hacked, he released information without concern about the output.


So people have the right to ruin my gaming experience by hacking ? Because their enjoyment >>>> my rights?



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

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.

Do you think that making money off Sony PlayStation games (without the permission from Sony) its ok but getting IPs to prove people used Geohotz code is not?

A) Getting IP's doesn't prove that people used Geohotz code. 

B) He doesn't deny distributing it... that part of the case isn't in arguement.

C) Ok to make money off Playstation games?   Yeah.  See Gamestop.  Not sure how that's relevent to anything though.

They used youtube to prove that he distributed the code and that the peopple watched it and took it for hacks

I never said anything about denial, im not arguing agaisnt or for him at all. Im arguing about Sony vs. Bleem

Gamestop is a retalier. They didnt build thier own hardware and make it play games from the other systems and make money off of it without the premision from the people who own those games (in this case Sony)

And?  They're making money without sony's permission by selling used games.

Like I said, building your own hardware to play games is 100% legal.

Though I don't believe Bleem was hardware, I believe it was a software emulator.

Look at "Crossover" and all the other legal emulators for Macs... that were posted in the other thread you seem to be argueing just to argue in.



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

As long as it doesnt effect other users...in this case it does

And it matter, your rights ends when you interfere with other people rights isn't it? And he didn't just hacked, he released information without concern about the output.


So people have the right to ruin my gaming experience by hacking ? Because their enjoyment >>>> my rights?

If Geohotz is hacking in COD, feel free to sue him, or have sony ban him.  The active party, IE the one hacking, is the one infringing your rights.