Sony Offline Entertainment (Hacking of PSN and SOE)

[Kwijiboe]

Intent to extort would be pretty hard to prove. It's the kind of BS thing that gets lumped in with the other 50 bullshit things that these lawsuits tend to generate, which all gets thrown out by a judge once they get down to it.

It's not that it is difficult to prove. They have Hotz' quote. I'd just hate to argue that in front of a grumpy circuit court judge with a straight face.

[aurik]

It's not that it is difficult to prove. They have Hotz' quote. I'd just hate to argue that in front of a grumpy circuit court judge with a straight face.

Easy defense: Hotz's quote isn't an attempt to extort. It's an offer of advice on how to make the next generation of consoles more secure. No consideration was demanded, and no action was threatened if the demands were not met.

Without additional evidence, that statement in and of itself doesn't qualify as an attempt to extort.

[Kwijiboe]

That's an argument, not proof.

[vagus]

People underestimate the power of anon.

I will enjoy watching this unfold.

/popcorn

Hackers of the World unite!

http://content7.flixster.com/photo/3...426777_gal.jpg

In all seriousness Sony should be happy considering their system was the last to get "hacked". Going after Geohotz is an attempt to scare off other coders won't work. As for the Anon haters. Lol. This group does some great work and can't wait to see more work.

[aurik]

That's an argument, not proof.

Well duh, you can't prove a negative.

[Kwijiboe]

It's going to come down who can articulate a better argument, not for lack of proof. But, we're obviously not on the same page. So I will concede, champ.

[aurik]

You're pretty dumb.

[Kwijiboe]

You can argue real good.

Anyway, trying to find damages in the statute.

[aurik]

In civil court, damages are the amount of damages sustained, plus any punitive amount. IE, not only would they have to show that it is a pretty reasonable conclusion that he tried to extort them, they would have to show that his attempt to extort caused them harm. Being butthurt because they got their shit owned by a 20 year old doesn't count as harm, by the way.

In criminal court, they'd never in a million years be able to reach the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.

You're still pretty dumb. There's no way in hell a civil court would find for a multibillion dollar international corporation over a private individual on that comment alone.

[Kwijiboe]

I've moved on from arguing with you over something that is.. to put succinctly, meaningless at this point.

Also, there's no way I would ever come to such a hasty conclusion that you do in this case. I haven't even researched the statute or seen it applied in any court.

Lastly, you have moved off point in your argument. Your argument was that there's not enough evidence, or more accurately, there is no proof. How do you know that there is no proof.. The case hasn't even moved into the discovery phase.

Now, in your most recent post, you're arguing that the allegation will not stick-- I myself was skeptical about the allegation sticking (remember my post: "lol at Extort").

Lastly, by damages, I meant-- does the statute detail what type of damages may be owed or what relief may be possible. This is SPECIFIC to the statute. I didn't ask for what the definition of damages was.

So... What is it you are arguing about?

Just let it go, man.

[aurik]

Without additional evidence, that statement in and of itself doesn't qualify as an attempt to extort.

You know, since you actually agree with me, you could have just said "oh yeah I agree"

Or you can claim to be "done" with arguing to lead off a multi-paragraph argument which actually agrees with what I said.

Edit: also, as I said, damages in civil court default to the damages incurred (within reason) except where the law dictates otherwise.

[TacoTaru]

Saw this crop up on a couple different websites, and apparently they're going after individuals now, Sony employees, the judge, Sony lawyers, etc. Anyone else seen anything else confirming this?
http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011...ony-employees/

[Snprphnx]

In all seriousness Sony should be happy considering their system was the last to get "hacked". Going after Geohotz is an attempt to scare off other coders won't work. As for the Anon haters. Lol. This group does some great work and can't wait to see more work.

Sony created the problem when they released the firmware patch to lock the install and use of linux. People with the ability to hack were perfectly happy not attempting to do so while they had the ability to run Linux. Once locked, they got pissed and got to work, taking less than a year to break the code

[Eggroll]

Pissing off the presiding judge seems like a pretty bad idea.

[bungiefan]

With EULAs, you haven't agreed to them when the money changes hands, you're often not able to read them in physical form before you actually break the seal on the box or install the software. Once you've done so, no retail store will accept a return, just an exchange for the same software or store credit (in the case of electronic hardware). It's a bit unreasonable to expect everyone to read all those EULAs, much less understand all of them. They're also trying to pin you to an agreement after you have paid, rather than before they actually sell you the product. I seem to remember something about such contracts being non-binding if they are enabled/modified after the money has changed hands. The expectation buying something in a retail store is that you are buying it to own it, not to rent access to it. HP doesn't suddenly come in and turn off your computer, and when the PS3 is running Linux it is a computer.

As for the PS3 being non-functional without games, not true. You can use it to play video and audio discs. It has a picture viewer. It had the option of installing OtherOS without even using the PSN, since you could download an install CD/DVD from the Linux distro sites with a PC. Also, no updates after the first that removed the Other OS menu option say they do so. I know someone who never connected their PS3 to the PSN to download firmware updates (or read the news online that the feature had been removed several months before), and got hit with the 5.0 firmware from Gran Turismo 5, had to install it to play it, and had their Linux partition permanently locked away from their access with no warning because it is encrypted to the PS3 that formatted it. They were using it as their email machine and web browser, with some personal documents stored on it. How is such removal fair or legal? Their data is effectively destroyed unless they hack their system to unlock the Linux partition for use again, or Sony enables the feature again. No warning that Sony was going to do that either, just bad luck sticking in a game disc that had an update.

[Cleverness]

As for the PS3 being non-functional without games, not true. You can use it to play video and audio discs. It has a picture viewer. It had the option of installing OtherOS without even using the PSN, since you could download an install CD/DVD from the Linux distro sites with a PC. Also, no updates after the first that removed the Other OS menu option say they do so. I know someone who never connected their PS3 to the PSN to download firmware updates (or read the news online that the feature had been removed several months before), and got hit with the 5.0 firmware from Gran Turismo 5, had to install it to play it, and had their Linux partition permanently locked away from their access with no warning because it is encrypted to the PS3 that formatted it. They were using it as their email machine and web browser, with some personal documents stored on it. How is such removal fair or legal? Their data is effectively destroyed unless they hack their system to unlock the Linux partition for use again, or Sony enables the feature again. No warning that Sony was going to do that either, just bad luck sticking in a game disc that had an update.

This I'm not cool with. My 360 isn't drastically behind in updates, but it happens from time to time. If I put in a game or try to do anything new and there's an update, I get a prompt that will dc me from Live if I don't agree. To my knowledge they don't auto update the firmware(they might, I am just not aware) without any sort of warning, which I find pretty messed up if the PS3 does indeed do that.

And I don't think it's exactly fair that a marketing point, as miniscule as the Linux using PS3 base probably was, was taken away. Some people liked having their PS3 able to multitask for them, Sony shouldn't be able to straight up lock people out because it feels like it. Someone paid for their product to do X,Y,Z as originally intended, removing Z cause you can is stupid and causes stuff like this to happen.

[Yugl]

If Anonymous claims to and justifies their actions by championing the greater good and attacking evil groups, why haven't they taken down the Republic party? At the very least, Sarah Palin's twitter?

[Sylvrdragon]

If Anonymous claims to and justifies their actions by championing the greater good and attacking evil groups, why haven't they taken down the Republic party? At the very least, Sarah Palin's twitter?

or Yugl, for that matter.

[Yugl]

or Yugl, for that matter.

I don't have a twitter.

[Surealistic]

You see, this is the problem with Intellectual property and what the average person considers actual ownership. On the one side you are absolutely right, as a consumer of a product you are entitled to use and operate that product in anyway you should see fit. On the other hand, Sony will argue that it's product is a constantly changing and evolving entity that is altered by the company (via firmware) to operate in a specific manner. The original arguments Geohot made were in regards to linux support that original PS3 systems theoretically could have if allowed by the source codes of sony's software. Linux support has since been locked on older models and the support dropped from newer ps3 models because through linux people could alter the way the Ps3 was designed to operate and subsequently change the way sony would profit on the sale of the system.

Sony makes money, not through one time sales of systems, but through the licensing of products and peripherals sold to function on the ps3, games and accessories. Pirating, which is made impossible through the firmware and source codes of the Ps3, therefore circumvents sony's licensing fees and detracts from their profits. What Geohotz and others essentially did was gain access, illegally, to the very keys that govern how the ps3's system is protected against pirating in order to enable them to reestablish linux support on models that the function was not dropped from which is what hotz will claim was his motive. Herein lies the problems:

Because Geohotz claimed responsibility, and has since been proven to have, gained access to these codes he is therefore responsible for any pirating that results from his discovery. Several other websites have since sold and made profits from selling unauthorized peripherals, USB drives that used the codes Geohotz discovered to play homebrew and pirated games, not to use linux. Sony through the lawsuit is therefore attempting to prove that Geohotz has enabled pirating through his releasing of the source codes of which he is not entitled to. Geohotz released the actual codes, to spite sony which made several attempts through firmware updates to prevent him from discovering the codes, which ultimately failed. He made a huge deal out of it through videos and blog posts bragging about how he could beat them. At the end of the day Sony is going to argue he did it to hurt them monetarily, and they're going to win.


Edit: most people legally don't even understand what sony is trying to establish. Most just want free pirated games and jump on the Geohotz bandwagon.

using this logic sony themselves are liable for decades of pirated media in the form of blank dvd' s, blank cd' s, blank vhs' s, and blank cassette tapes