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

Forums - Sony - Anon attacking Sony employees and their children?

Kasz216 on 09 April 2011
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:

Kasz216 said:

 

 


And yet.. he wasn't convicted eh?  Whether piracy or not is around is completely pointless.

Also.  Not he wouldn't be catagorically found guilty.

Yes he would. If he released a firmware designed with piracy in mind and admitted as much, he most certainly would. 

 

Piracy being one of the outcomes is... completely irrelevent.

The only time something providing or making something that has illegal uses is relevent is when there are zero legal applications.

Afterall, kitchen knives have the illegal use of stabbing no?

Stabbing someone with a kitchen knife is one of the known negative effects that some people desire... right?

Again,  you can name an example like that. 

I can name an example of a restaurant who gets in legal trouble because a patron who legally bought alcohol, drank too much and ended up driving (on his own accord)  and killing someone while intoxicated.   It's not the restaurants fault that he drank too much,  drank too much without a ride,  drove drunk,  nor is it their responsibility to make sure that he has a way of safely getting home.

 

 

Sony literally does this all the time.  LOTS of companies do.

Ofcourse they do.   A.)  For intimadation like you said ,   B.)   Searching for anything they can manage to include as illegal and win a case on,  C.)  Because they have a whole arsenal of attorneys on payroll that it's no skin off their back really.

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much,  I don't have a moral dislike for Geohot.  I just do believe that he did it (Atleast partially)  with piracy motives (And I think you're being intentionally obtuse for saying otherwise).    I don't even mind him Jailbreaking things, but if he did it with piracy in mind (And Sony can show or prove this,  he will be in legal trouble).




Restruants DON'T get into legal trouble for that though.

Also, I'm completely failing to see your point then.

Though, intention is completely pointless. 

Also near impossible to prove.  I mean, it's not like playing an image of a CD is illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't own the game it was produced off of.

Yes,  they do.   That's a big reason why you get 'shut-off' at bars. 

My point is,  Geohot probably committed an offense during the Jailbreak process.  He probably atleast attempted something pertaining to piracy,  why wouldn't he?   If he infact did,  he is guilty of what they are saying he is guilty of.  It's just funny to me how people around here run around and try to make this some moral crusade about how Geohot would never do anything like that, and I think it's completely false and funny.   Ofcourse, Geohot probably pirates music, movies, games, etc.   

I don't personally care that he did it, it doesn't affect me one way or another and I'm not against piracy in all fashions but I do believe he is guilty, if only a small bit.

No, you get shut offs at bars because if someone kills someone while drunk driving from your bar it's bad buisness.

No.  Do you own a business?   Have you even ran a business?  You most certainly can and will get charged with liability relating to that as a Bar owner.  It doesn't sound fair (it truly isn't)  but it does happen more often than you would think.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/court_restaurants_bars_liable.html

"In a precedent-setting decision, a state appeals court ruled today that a bar or restaurant can be held liable for allowing a patron to drive drunk although the person did not drink there."

http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa990929.htm

"A ruling last week by the Montana Supreme Court has once again held a bar owner responsible for damages caused by a patron because he continued to serve him alcohol knowing he was already intoxicated."

http://business-law.lawyers.com/business-litigation/Bar-Liability-for-Alcohol-Injuries.html

"Are you or a family member the victim of a drunk driver who went bar-hopping before driving intoxicated? Were you assaulted as a bystander by a drunk patron in a bar fight or a brawl outside a tavern? You may have a right to sue the bar under what are called "dram shop" laws."

 

Do you really need to keep arguing this point? 


Ok, that doesn't actually help your case though.  That's extremly different.  As you can physically stop someone from drunk driving.

And also again not what he's being accused of.



Around the Network
thranx on 10 April 2011
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:

Kasz216 said:

 

 


And yet.. he wasn't convicted eh?  Whether piracy or not is around is completely pointless.

Also.  Not he wouldn't be catagorically found guilty.

Yes he would. If he released a firmware designed with piracy in mind and admitted as much, he most certainly would. 

 

Piracy being one of the outcomes is... completely irrelevent.

The only time something providing or making something that has illegal uses is relevent is when there are zero legal applications.

Afterall, kitchen knives have the illegal use of stabbing no?

Stabbing someone with a kitchen knife is one of the known negative effects that some people desire... right?

Again,  you can name an example like that. 

I can name an example of a restaurant who gets in legal trouble because a patron who legally bought alcohol, drank too much and ended up driving (on his own accord)  and killing someone while intoxicated.   It's not the restaurants fault that he drank too much,  drank too much without a ride,  drove drunk,  nor is it their responsibility to make sure that he has a way of safely getting home.

 

 

Sony literally does this all the time.  LOTS of companies do.

Ofcourse they do.   A.)  For intimadation like you said ,   B.)   Searching for anything they can manage to include as illegal and win a case on,  C.)  Because they have a whole arsenal of attorneys on payroll that it's no skin off their back really.

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much,  I don't have a moral dislike for Geohot.  I just do believe that he did it (Atleast partially)  with piracy motives (And I think you're being intentionally obtuse for saying otherwise).    I don't even mind him Jailbreaking things, but if he did it with piracy in mind (And Sony can show or prove this,  he will be in legal trouble).




Restruants DON'T get into legal trouble for that though.

Also, I'm completely failing to see your point then.

Though, intention is completely pointless. 

Also near impossible to prove.  I mean, it's not like playing an image of a CD is illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't own the game it was produced off of.

Yes,  they do.   That's a big reason why you get 'shut-off' at bars. 

My point is,  Geohot probably committed an offense during the Jailbreak process.  He probably atleast attempted something pertaining to piracy,  why wouldn't he?   If he infact did,  he is guilty of what they are saying he is guilty of.  It's just funny to me how people around here run around and try to make this some moral crusade about how Geohot would never do anything like that, and I think it's completely false and funny.   Ofcourse, Geohot probably pirates music, movies, games, etc.   

I don't personally care that he did it, it doesn't affect me one way or another and I'm not against piracy in all fashions but I do believe he is guilty, if only a small bit.


No, you get shut offs at bars because if someone kills someone while drunk driving from your bar it's bad buisness.

No.  Do you own a business?   Have you even ran a business?  You most certainly can and will get charged with liability relating to that as a Bar owner.  It doesn't sound fair (it truly isn't)  but it does happen more often than you would think.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/court_restaurants_bars_liable.html

"In a precedent-setting decision, a state appeals court ruled today that a bar or restaurant can be held liable for allowing a patron to drive drunk although the person did not drink there."

http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa990929.htm

 "A ruling last week by the Montana Supreme Court has once again held a bar owner responsible for damages caused by a patron because he continued to serve him alcohol knowing he was already intoxicated."

 

http://business-law.lawyers.com/business-litigation/Bar-Liability-for-Alcohol-Injuries.html

"Are you or a family member the victim of a drunk driver who went bar-hopping before driving intoxicated? Were you assaulted as a bystander by a drunk patron in a bar fight or a brawl outside a tavern? You may have a right to sue the bar under what are called "dram shop" laws."

 

Do you really need to keep arguing this point? 

as far as I know those laws are not nation wide and may vary from state to state in what is regarded as too much and how liable you are. So he may live in a state that does not have this.



thranx on 10 April 2011
Rpruett said:
thranx said:
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:

Kasz216 said:

 

 


And yet.. he wasn't convicted eh?  Whether piracy or not is around is completely pointless.

Also.  Not he wouldn't be catagorically found guilty.

Yes he would. If he released a firmware designed with piracy in mind and admitted as much, he most certainly would. 

 

Piracy being one of the outcomes is... completely irrelevent.

The only time something providing or making something that has illegal uses is relevent is when there are zero legal applications.

Afterall, kitchen knives have the illegal use of stabbing no?

Stabbing someone with a kitchen knife is one of the known negative effects that some people desire... right?

Again,  you can name an example like that. 

I can name an example of a restaurant who gets in legal trouble because a patron who legally bought alcohol, drank too much and ended up driving (on his own accord)  and killing someone while intoxicated.   It's not the restaurants fault that he drank too much,  drank too much without a ride,  drove drunk,  nor is it their responsibility to make sure that he has a way of safely getting home.

 

 

Sony literally does this all the time.  LOTS of companies do.

Ofcourse they do.   A.)  For intimadation like you said ,   B.)   Searching for anything they can manage to include as illegal and win a case on,  C.)  Because they have a whole arsenal of attorneys on payroll that it's no skin off their back really.

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much,  I don't have a moral dislike for Geohot.  I just do believe that he did it (Atleast partially)  with piracy motives (And I think you're being intentionally obtuse for saying otherwise).    I don't even mind him Jailbreaking things, but if he did it with piracy in mind (And Sony can show or prove this,  he will be in legal trouble).




Restruants DON'T get into legal trouble for that though.

Also, I'm completely failing to see your point then.

Though, intention is completely pointless. 

Also near impossible to prove.  I mean, it's not like playing an image of a CD is illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't own the game it was produced off of.

Yes,  they do.   That's a big reason why you get 'shut-off' at bars. 

My point is,  Geohot probably committed an offense during the Jailbreak process.  He probably atleast attempted something pertaining to piracy,  why wouldn't he?   If he infact did,  he is guilty of what they are saying he is guilty of.  It's just funny to me how people around here run around and try to make this some moral crusade about how Geohot would never do anything like that, and I think it's completely false and funny.   Ofcourse, Geohot probably pirates music, movies, games, etc.   

I don't personally care that he did it, it doesn't affect me one way or another and I'm not against piracy in all fashions but I do believe he is guilty, if only a small bit.

Please do us all a favor and read the court documents. Piracy is not mentioned any where in the law suit. IT IS NOT ABOUT PIRACY IN ANYWAY. Sony is not sueing for piracy. They are not suing for stolen games. They are not sueing for hacking into the PSN. They are sueing because he circumvented their controls of his ps3 and opened it up to custom software. They are also trying to sue for the release of a series of number they claim they have copyright protection too (I believe thats how its worded).

Again proving that piracy exists from this is an excellent way to prove damages from his development of the custom firmware. 

The copyright protection number is similar to how you couldn't just give away the combination to a safe of a bank you worked at and if you did and someone ended up robbing the bank safe ...You could be held accountable as well.

So are we now going to hold Gun makers liable for gun deaths?

Perhaps Sony should be sueing who ever made Geohot his pc or the parts for it, I mean they created the tools for hime to create the tools for somebody else to pirate.

Proving that other people pirated software will have no effect on Geohot. HE DID NOT PIRATE AND IS NOT ACCUSED OF IT.



Rpruett on 10 April 2011
thranx said:
Rpruett said:
thranx said:
Rpruett said:
Kasz216 said:
Rpruett said:

Kasz216 said:

 

 


And yet.. he wasn't convicted eh?  Whether piracy or not is around is completely pointless.

Also.  Not he wouldn't be catagorically found guilty.

Yes he would. If he released a firmware designed with piracy in mind and admitted as much, he most certainly would. 

 

Piracy being one of the outcomes is... completely irrelevent.

The only time something providing or making something that has illegal uses is relevent is when there are zero legal applications.

Afterall, kitchen knives have the illegal use of stabbing no?

Stabbing someone with a kitchen knife is one of the known negative effects that some people desire... right?

Again,  you can name an example like that. 

I can name an example of a restaurant who gets in legal trouble because a patron who legally bought alcohol, drank too much and ended up driving (on his own accord)  and killing someone while intoxicated.   It's not the restaurants fault that he drank too much,  drank too much without a ride,  drove drunk,  nor is it their responsibility to make sure that he has a way of safely getting home.

 

 

Sony literally does this all the time.  LOTS of companies do.

Ofcourse they do.   A.)  For intimadation like you said ,   B.)   Searching for anything they can manage to include as illegal and win a case on,  C.)  Because they have a whole arsenal of attorneys on payroll that it's no skin off their back really.

I don't think we're really disagreeing on much,  I don't have a moral dislike for Geohot.  I just do believe that he did it (Atleast partially)  with piracy motives (And I think you're being intentionally obtuse for saying otherwise).    I don't even mind him Jailbreaking things, but if he did it with piracy in mind (And Sony can show or prove this,  he will be in legal trouble).




Restruants DON'T get into legal trouble for that though.

Also, I'm completely failing to see your point then.

Though, intention is completely pointless. 

Also near impossible to prove.  I mean, it's not like playing an image of a CD is illegal.  It's only illegal if you don't own the game it was produced off of.

Yes,  they do.   That's a big reason why you get 'shut-off' at bars. 

My point is,  Geohot probably committed an offense during the Jailbreak process.  He probably atleast attempted something pertaining to piracy,  why wouldn't he?   If he infact did,  he is guilty of what they are saying he is guilty of.  It's just funny to me how people around here run around and try to make this some moral crusade about how Geohot would never do anything like that, and I think it's completely false and funny.   Ofcourse, Geohot probably pirates music, movies, games, etc.   

I don't personally care that he did it, it doesn't affect me one way or another and I'm not against piracy in all fashions but I do believe he is guilty, if only a small bit.

Please do us all a favor and read the court documents. Piracy is not mentioned any where in the law suit. IT IS NOT ABOUT PIRACY IN ANYWAY. Sony is not sueing for piracy. They are not suing for stolen games. They are not sueing for hacking into the PSN. They are sueing because he circumvented their controls of his ps3 and opened it up to custom software. They are also trying to sue for the release of a series of number they claim they have copyright protection too (I believe thats how its worded).

Again proving that piracy exists from this is an excellent way to prove damages from his development of the custom firmware. 

The copyright protection number is similar to how you couldn't just give away the combination to a safe of a bank you worked at and if you did and someone ended up robbing the bank safe ...You could be held accountable as well.

So are we now going to hold Gun makers liable for gun deaths?

Perhaps Sony should be sueing who ever made Geohot his pc or the parts for it, I mean they created the tools for hime to create the tools for somebody else to pirate.

Proving that other people pirated software will have no effect on Geohot. HE DID NOT PIRATE AND IS NOT ACCUSED OF IT.

Again don't get all defensive about it.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just stating the actual state of where we are at.  



DonFerrari on 13 April 2011

So the defense of Liberty see that you can be liable for doing something that makes things easier for crimes? And you can be held by it... and start saying that the rule in the state may be different, etc?

Why not accept that he knew the possibility of piracy with his hacking?



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."