Some need to be inconvenienced to secure rights for others. Like the people of the Deep South who, while maybe they didn't care too much one way or another about Civil Rights, were inconvenienced by sit-ins at cafeterias because they couldn't get their lunch, this momentary inconvenience will be to the benefit of all, if it works.

If not, it could backfire, making Sony yet more paranoid and defensive

But that does not prove anything I said as wrong, which is my only problem with what you posted after quoting me. There are things to consider in any given situation and while I can agree there are plenty of legit places to donate money and it far from put some huge dent in relief funds, but it did in fact disrupt it. Plenty of people have donated through PSN because they trust it just the same as I trusted my college fundrasier board.

The difference is that one is a games console and another is a phone. One platform makes most of it's money from hardware, another makes most of it's money from software. One runs an online gaming network, the other doesn't. One has consumers which could potentially have their online experience harmed, the other doesn't. They are two different things, both of them being electronic devices doesn't make them similar platforms.

Also, the law that was passed for phones went through, as far as I know, the law still states that consoles can't be hacked. Until something changes, then analogies are pointless in this case.

The difference is that one is a games console and another is a phone. One platform makes most of it's money from hardware, another makes most of it's money from software. One runs an online gaming network, the other doesn't. One has consumers which could potentially have their online experience harmed, the other doesn't. They are two different things, both of them being electronic devices doesn't make them similar platforms.

Also, the law that was passed for phones went through, as far as I know, the law still states that consoles can't be hacked. Until something changes, then analogies are pointless in this case.

Who said anything about the PSN. he did nothing to that.

The app store was not affected? I think piracy runs rampant on iphones too

The iphone doesn't have games?

Those games on iphone dont have online across a network? http://toucharcade.com/category/games/massive-multiplayer-mmo/

A business choice to sell hardware at a loss is just that a business choice. They dont have too. They do it too undermine smaller companies being able to get a foothold into the industry by inflating the cost to start up and requiring massive cash reserves. I am not going to feel sorry for Sony because of their business choice.

So they are essentially the exact same thing. except if your sony?

I was referring to the network in general, the app store never got shut down and peoples ability to play games online were never harmed.

Apple doesn't run that network, they don't have a service like PSN which intersects between all games.

My fridge can play games. The I-Phone is a phone, games are a side product. It'd be like calling the PS3 a computer just because it has a browser, keyboard and mouse support and can print stuff using bluetooth.

It's not a business choice just for Sony, it's the standard console model. The Wii, PS3 and 360 are all now selling at a profit, but it isn't the hardware that's keeping their businesses running, it's the games they sell. Phones are sold at inflated prices at release, my HTC didn't cost $900 to manufacture, it cost like $200 and the rest is profit. That happens because once they sell you the phone, then it's possibly the last time they'll be making money off of you. Different business models and they shouldn't have to change them around just to support the couple of thousand hackers that want to mod their console, because I doubt consumers are going to want to start paying $1000 for a console at retail, just so the manufacture can make sure that they can make back their software losses.

Sony also isn't the only one wanting this, if Microsoft or Nintendo had a hand in this, then they'd fight just as hard. 

I'm also giving reasons as to why, not as to what should be. 

@Galaki. I'm not picking and choosing. It's the court that'll be picking and choosing, I just said that analogies are pointless when us forum dwellers don't even know what's legal or not right at this moment. Right now, it's illegal, after the case it could become legal (like with phones).

And they choose to follow that standard. Its still a choice. I could be wrong but hasn't nintendo sold every console at a profit. No loss on hardware?

-- "Speaking about the PS3, we never said we will release a game console," he said. "It is radically different from the previous PlayStation. It is clearly a computer. Indeed, with a game console, you need to take out any unnecessary elements inside the console in order to decrease its cost. ... This will of course apply to the PS3 as well." http://www.1up.com/news/hey-ps3-computer-game-system

Nintendo wouldn't be able to run on just hardware profit alone, they are what they are because of how much software they sell. The same goes for every game company. They'd also never sell any consoles, because barely any software would be coming out for it. It costs alot of money to run a games company and the 800,000,000 or something that Nintendo would have made on hardware wouldn't be able to cover the cost of games development and the general running of the company.

I thought you didn't care what Sony said? You can't pick and choose buddy. lol jks.

Old PR quotes from ex employees doesn't change what I said, the PS3 isn't a computer. The Wii isn't a computer just because it has a browser. They are closed platforms developed with specififc features in mind and that is gaming, giving you a side feature doesn't make it that specific feature, otherwise my phone would be a calculator, my fridge would be a TV and my TV would be a games system.

PS3 isn't a computer