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

Forums - Sony - Do you think Sony regrets going after George Hotz now?

Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

in the end, their better off than if geo hot wasnt taken to court and jailbreak spead around the world costing them millions and losing 3rd party support as they did with PSP.

I love how people on VGChartz make blatant strawmen of one's arguments and hope one doesn't notice. PROTIP: you're supposed to make strawmen of people's arguments when you're talking to third parties and they aren't present to defend themselves.

Jailbreak has already spread across the world. Once an exploit has been found, you can never stop people hacking your system. All Sony is doing now is bringing attention to it and making people angry, which leads to more jailbreaking.

and piracy and legal and stopping it is illegal? since when?

I'm referring to their removal of OtherOS as illegal, seeing as it was completely illegal. Their removal of it was one of the factors that spurred hackers on.

I didn't say anything that any honest person could interpret as meaning piracy was legal.

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.



Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.



JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.



Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

in the end, their better off than if geo hot wasnt taken to court and jailbreak spead around the world costing them millions and losing 3rd party support as they did with PSP.

I love how people on VGChartz make blatant strawmen of one's arguments and hope one doesn't notice. PROTIP: you're supposed to make strawmen of people's arguments when you're talking to third parties and they aren't present to defend themselves.

Jailbreak has already spread across the world. Once an exploit has been found, you can never stop people hacking your system. All Sony is doing now is bringing attention to it and making people angry, which leads to more jailbreaking.

and piracy and legal and stopping it is illegal? since when?

I'm referring to their removal of OtherOS as illegal, seeing as it was completely illegal. Their removal of it was one of the factors that spurred hackers on.

I didn't say anything that any honest person could interpret as meaning piracy was legal.

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

But they didn't advertise it at all! It was a feature that was just included with the PS3. They never once ever said that "it only does other OS." Come on and get real now man. You're being dillusional like every other supporter for these hackers.



 Proud owner of the PSone original, PSone slim, PS2 slim, PS3 slim, PSP-3000.

37 PS3 games and counting.

Around the Network
Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.


I'm not disputing what they said, but they have no legal power, they're the equivalent of a probation officer giving their recomendations to a court, it's taken into consideration but it's not they who decide anything, so until this case is brought up in court ( which it hasn't) and they decide in favour of the plaintiff  then this means very little atm.

I'm not disputing with you whether the removal of os was morally correct, but at present it was legal.



vr6GOLFr32 said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kudistos Megistos said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

in the end, their better off than if geo hot wasnt taken to court and jailbreak spead around the world costing them millions and losing 3rd party support as they did with PSP.

I love how people on VGChartz make blatant strawmen of one's arguments and hope one doesn't notice. PROTIP: you're supposed to make strawmen of people's arguments when you're talking to third parties and they aren't present to defend themselves.

Jailbreak has already spread across the world. Once an exploit has been found, you can never stop people hacking your system. All Sony is doing now is bringing attention to it and making people angry, which leads to more jailbreaking.

and piracy and legal and stopping it is illegal? since when?

I'm referring to their removal of OtherOS as illegal, seeing as it was completely illegal. Their removal of it was one of the factors that spurred hackers on.

I didn't say anything that any honest person could interpret as meaning piracy was legal.

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

But they didn't advertise it at all! It was a feature that was just included with the PS3. They never once ever said that "it only does other OS." Come on and get real now man. You're being dillusional like every other supporter for these hackers.

http://www.playstation.com/ps3-openplatform/index.html

 

If that's not advertisement... Bazinga!



JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.


I'm not disputing what they said, but they have no legal power, they're the equivalent of a probation officer giving their recomendations to a court, it's taken into consideration but it's not they who decide anything, so until this case is brought up in court ( which it hasn't) and they decide in favour of the plaintiff  then this means very little atm.

I'm not disputing with you whether the removal of os was morally correct, but at present it was legal.

So you say that if I don't pay my taxes, which I consider are abusive, while the government doesn't notice, it's legal? Something that isn't judged doesn't mean that's legal, it only means that isn't judged. Sony broke the consumers rights, so they broke the law. You can justify it in the pursue of a greater right, but what they did is against the law. Plain and simple.



Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.


I'm not disputing what they said, but they have no legal power, they're the equivalent of a probation officer giving their recomendations to a court, it's taken into consideration but it's not they who decide anything, so until this case is brought up in court ( which it hasn't) and they decide in favour of the plaintiff  then this means very little atm.

I'm not disputing with you whether the removal of os was morally correct, but at present it was legal.

So you say that if I don't pay my taxes, which I consider are abusive, while the government doesn't notice, it's legal? Something that isn't judged doesn't mean that's legal, it only means that isn't judged. Sony broke the consumers rights, so they broke the law. You can justify it in the pursue of a greater right, but what they did is against the law. Plain and simple.

If you don't pay taxes and not get caught/noticed it's still illegal, I'm sorry but thats a rather weak and flawed example you got there, I don't recall me ever saying an illegal act that's not been discovered is legal.

You might be of the opinion that what Sony did was illegal thats your prerogative, but the courts don't agree with you at present, provide evidence that the courts have decided that the removal of os was illegal, not some consumer board's recommendations or quite frankly I'd leave it alone, thinking its illegal doesn't make it so.

Personally I couldn't give a shit about os, but if it's illegal then let people be compensated.



JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
JazzyJeez said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Kynes said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
...

removing features from a product (which are not core to its primary function) is not illegal.

attacking servers, pirating and hacking PSN is illegal.

thats why geo hot is in court and FBI are after anonymous and not sony.

anyways, PROTIP: dont study law because you dont even understand basic morals.

In Europe it is. If you advertise it, then you can't remove it, or you have to compensate your users.

 

Even they used it to import it as a computer, not a videogames system, so they pay less duties.

 

i remember they were taken to court but didnt hear anything after...

you know what happened?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/04/23/031220/Sony-Should-Pay-For-OtherOS-Removal-Says-Finnish-Board


exactly....so they paid the consequences.

and now, so must geo hot and anonymous.


You just said that it isn't illegal, but it doesn't seem to be that way. Sony hasn't paid anything, yet, but if this jurisprudence extends, it could cost them some money.

That's the verdict of a finnish consumer complaint's board, they have absolutely no legal power to enforce that payment, thats upto the courts to decide, until the courts say otherwise the removal of os was legal.

That consumer complaint's boards resolution have a quasi mandatory legal status in Finland, so it's probable that Sony would try to reach an agreement, as it's more than probable that they would lose in a court. The most important thing is were it says that EULAs can't be against consumer rights.


I'm not disputing what they said, but they have no legal power, they're the equivalent of a probation officer giving their recomendations to a court, it's taken into consideration but it's not they who decide anything, so until this case is brought up in court ( which it hasn't) and they decide in favour of the plaintiff  then this means very little atm.

I'm not disputing with you whether the removal of os was morally correct, but at present it was legal.

So you say that if I don't pay my taxes, which I consider are abusive, while the government doesn't notice, it's legal? Something that isn't judged doesn't mean that's legal, it only means that isn't judged. Sony broke the consumers rights, so they broke the law. You can justify it in the pursue of a greater right, but what they did is against the law. Plain and simple.

If you don't pay taxes and not get caught/noticed it's still illegal, I'm sorry but thats a rather weak and flawed example you got there, I don't recall me ever saying an illegal act that's not been discovered is legal.

You might be of the opinion that what Sony did was illegal thats your prerogative, but the courts don't agree with you at present, provide evidence that the courts have decided that the removal of os was illegal, not some consumer board's recommendations or quite frankly I'd leave it alone, thinking its illegal doesn't make it so.

Personally I couldn't give a shit about os, but if it's illegal then let people be compensated.

Well, let me say that it is immoral and not regulated, as it's not yet judged. Being not regulated != being legal.