Geohot Claims He's Never Heard of Sony Computer Entertainment of America

[SteewpidZombie]

Soooo...Hotz is still a douche...SONY is still being view as bad guys...and consumer and user policies and rights are becoming stricter as user agreements get cracking down on the people who just wanna game in peace...*sigh*...god dammit GeoHotz...just...such a...douche...such a douche indeed...*sigh*

 

[caviar1]

anyone else think we should be allowed to mess with technology?fuckin anarchy and such

 

[Bobbity]

Bullshit. I discovered SCEA at the age of six, doing nothing more than playing on my PS2.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

i don't believe him but i think its a good idea. to be air though i only just found out about sony being in California. so it is possible i guess.

 

[Kazinski]

I have to agree with Geohot's lawyers here. While I knew Sony of America existed, I really had no idea that they were their own autonomous company and always thought they were some stupid sub company of the Japanese Sony :/

 

[MikeyW]

Does anyone actually realize that this fella isn't in trouble for modding his console? Modifiying a console isn't illegal. You can turn it into a grill, wear it as a hat, change parts in it or make love to it, it doesn't matter. What he is in trouble for is breaking open the security of the software than distributing that break to the world at large. Which is a major crime in a lot of countries. He's lucky he's just getting sued.

Also, how many of you that have never heard of SCEA are not in America? I'm guessing those that arnt would have heard of SCEE?

 

[fgdfgdgd]

I don't know if this is in America, but what I've learned of my legal system (Australia) Ignorance is not a defence, I dare say it isn't there, it's a stalling tactic, that's all.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

I keep manuals and boxes because I am a pack rat. I do not read them. Ignorance is plausible.

Anyone I plan to make an enemy, however, I study meticulously: knowing their many names would be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_shareholders_and_subsidiaries#Major_Holdings.2FSubsidiaries

and maybe

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-10.html

You do know ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it right? Just because you chose not to read them does not make you any less liable if you break the rules.

I am quite aware. I am replying to those who question his ability to be ignorant, not the validity of ignorance as a legal defense.

 

[Hawknight]

In the words of the jaegermonsters "he iz a schmot guy".

Yay for a fellow Girl Genius fan.

OT: I'm pretty sure being ignorant of something doesn't make you immune to the consequences. I'm pretty sure "I'm sorry officer, I didn't see that speed limit sign so how can I be held responsible for obeying it" won't hold up at your ticket hearing. Or how about "I didn't realize that it was illegal to download music so I shouldn't be punished for it". I bet that would go over really well.

 

[Bigsmith]

In the words of the jaegermonsters "he iz a schmot guy".

And there was me thinking I was the only one who read that web comic

heh, I don't normally comment on these as the court case has just started to confuse me. But really, stop playing still buggers and just end it. I really don't care who wins, I'm just getting sick and tiered of it.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

This guy is sodding pathetic. Like, honestly, could you get any more stupid?

 

[Zer0Saber]

hmm I wondered what scea stood for

it's hard to get sarcasm across in text form

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

I keep manuals and boxes because I am a pack rat. I do not read them. Ignorance is plausible.

Anyone I plan to make an enemy, however, I study meticulously: knowing their many names would be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corporation_shareholders_and_subsidiaries#Major_Holdings.2FSubsidiaries

and maybe

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-10.html

You do know ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it right? Just because you chose not to read them does not make you any less liable if you break the rules.

I am quite aware. I am replying to those who question his ability to be ignorant, not the validity of ignorance as a legal defense.

Ah, misread your post a bit. Well that's what I get for not paying attention.

 

[Verlander]

I don't know about America, but in the UK I'm damn sure that wouldn't fly. Ignorance doesn't shield you from the law. If Sony provided those manuals, it's his responsibility to read them.

Actually, in terms of jurisdiction, this might well fly in the UK if you were unable to prove that the defendant is lying (I'm currently covering International Commercial Law in my law post-grad ).

Everyone seems to be mistaking the use of ignorance as evidence for proving which country/state has jurisdiction for using ignorance of the law as a defence against the actual charges in the actual court case. The actual case hasn't started yet, and he's not using ignorance as a defence against the charges against him, he's using it as evidence as to why California doesn't have jurisdiction. For this part, ignorance is perfectly usable.

It's a brilliantly clever tactic, if he pulls it off. Otherwise it's just going to add another charge to the list against him.

I hope he wins, because Sony suck.

Someone else pointed out that if he ever played a game on the system, the game would read "Sony systems of America" or whatever. Knowing the division exist should be tantamount to know that they have a legal department.... I don't see this winning still, but it's (slightly) interesting to watch

 

[justnotcricket]

Oh for goodness sake.

Hotz = desperate. I mean, come on - that's the best defense they have at the moment?

Jeez...

 

[Wintermoot]

hmm I wondered what scea stood for

Super Control Energy Alliance
never heard of it?
they control all the energy in the world!

 

[Iwata]

I took both Law and International Law. One of the first things we were taught is that ignorance in no circumstance serves as an excuse under the law.

Except in America, apparently. But we all know the law works a bit differently there.

Not really here either. "I didn't know" is an excuse usually heard from children. Geohot will have some trouble using that as an actual excuse in court.

Unless you're here how exactly do you know how the law works since you live where ever "there" is.

My point exactly. That which is considered normal and based on common sense in regards to law is usually, well... not seen the same way in the U.S., where litigation takes on a whole new meaning. Hence, I am not the least bit surprised to see a defendant preparing to lie to court because his lawyer found a legal loophole.

"Here", being Europe, that shit wouldn't fly. Loopholes or not, you blatantly lie to a judge and you're fucked.

It's ironic, really. In terms of international law, the U.S. is as specific and careful as you can be, to avoid any personal gain from a poorly-worded sentence, yet, when it comes to civic law, you see this kinda shit all the time, to the point where the civilian courts in the U.S. are used as an example of how NOT to conduct law in a normal society. Law in the U.S. is a deeply flawed hybrid. You have one of the fastest criminal systems in the world, but you also have a terrible record in terms of wrongly determining guilt or innocence, and not to mention the fact that a lot of your criminal system is driven by money, and he who has the most money usually stands a much better chance of having his will enforced.

It's not your fault, really, it's just how your system works. For better or for worse.

 

[Bob the frantic]

The continuing adventures of Geohot and the Legal Loopholes of America. These battles can go for months with every single word of the law up for scrutiny. I think it's time to just let the lawyers argue until one side makes a mistake and the matter reaches court.

...maybe

 

[Comrade_Beric]

To be fair, I was only tangentially aware that Sony had subsidiary companies in the US as opposed to simply a Japanese-owned American branch office. Many people think about corporations as trees, with one common root, but the way the legal system works makes them more like parents and children. Related, yes, but each a different person in their own right. I can see how someone might think that all of the rights of the branches belong foremost to the overall corporation, but if this were true there would be no reason to make the branches at all. The point of making subsidiary companies is to distribute legal responsibility in case someone has to be sued, so that it is only the local branch that would take the fall and not the organization as a whole, and also to make it possible to sue people in each country without having to risk the parent company which will also circumvent any international laws that might affect the outcome.