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

[Custard_Angel]

Regardless of how you feel about the whole hacking, "right vs. wrong" aspect, reading about this story as it unfolds just paints this guy as an incompetent fuck-up...

He leaves the country unannounced and doesn't understand why that raises eyebrows.

He claims ignorance of the fact that a multi-billion dollar corporation has a US division.

All I see is a bloated legal system (that is otherwise somewhat functional), a petty corporation (that has a right to defend its property in its own dickish way) and a moronic hacker (who did some fine work).

My human side makes me want to root for the underdog but my more malevolent side doesn't really give a shit who gets bit in the arse.

That said, I look forward to the next episode. Perhaps Geohot will claim amnesia then repeal his claim. And wonder why suddenly he's in deep shit.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Bullshit.

He must have played a PS1 game at some point and MUST have noticed the "Sony Computer Entertainment of America" below the PS1 logo.

This argument doesn't hold water.

Proove it.

America has this very silly law system where the burden of proof lies on the accuser. And it has to be 100% conclusive proof with none of speculative claims.

Any claims you make based on assumptions without photographical/audio/video evidence are speculative, thus playing idiot in the American court works often.


I can go as far to say, if Sony does not prove he could have found out about the american branch name based upon the evidence of actions he did. They are quite screwed.

 

[JDKJ]

He refers to the SCEA on his blog, he has a screenshot of the TOS with SCEA in it several times and he talks about SCEA in the description of one of his youtube videos. This kid never ceases to amaze me.

Of course he'd know of the SCEA by now. He's being sued by them, afterall.

I'm not sure why people are expecting him to pull a jesus out of his ass and follow by scapegoating him as some sort of red herring messiah representing the hacking community when this is a perfectly viable and clever loophole to utilize, especially considering that Sony almost managed to frame him having a PSN account. He's never had any moral high ground of any kind, he's just a man in another court preceeding. This is probably the most ingenious "fuck you" I can think of, and even then I don't see how this is pathetic enough that it compares to what Sony tried setting him up for. It sounds stupid, yes, but as has been stated pages ago which people stupidly skimmed by, no one is arguing that his ignorance will make him exempt from the law. It's the idea that if Sony can't prove that he didn't know SCEA existed as a corporate entity before he got sued, they can't sue him in California. This case would have to be picked up by Japan, which that alone is extremely unfeasible and more than likely wouldn't warrant the amount of extra effort required for them to go through this.

Tl;dr, the case won't end if GeoHot's claims are proven false. It'd just have to take place elsewhere. It just so happens that as it stands, it isn't likely to happen.

This is Ace Attorney logic at it's finest, and to be honest I'd love to see GeoHot get off the hook, simply on the account of this. It'd be absolutely hilarious.

I'm not at all clear as to why Hotz and his lawyer and you think that whether or not he knew of SCEA'a existence has a thing to do with whether or not a California court can exercise jurisdiction over him. California, like most courts in the country, determine whether or not personal jurisdiction exists by applying the so-called "minimum contacts" test, the three prongs of which are: (1) the defendant has "purposefully availed" himself or herself of forum state's benefits, (2) the controversy is related to or "arises out of" the defendant's contacts with the forum state, and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with "fair play and substantial justice."

Nowhere does the minimum contacts test, as stated or commonly applied, contain an expressed or implied requirement that the defendant know of the plaintiff beforehand. Perhaps Hotz and his attorney are attempting to squeeze this requirement out of the third prong as somehow being required by "fair play and substantial justice" but I'll bet my dollar to your nickel that won't find any traction with the Court. The Court, as most courts do in performing a personal jurisdiction analysis, is more likely to focus on the first prong and whether Hotz' internet activities satisfy the "purposeful availment" requirement. And, unfortunately for Hotz, most internet sites that are highly interactive in nature, such as Hotz' weblog, will easily satisfy the "purposeful availment" requirement. The second and third prongs are usually an easy lay up for the plaintiff.

And even in the unlikely event that the Court agrees with Hotz and his half-baked legal theories, the case will not, as you seem to think, have to be picked up by Sony Japan. SCEA will simply file their suit against Hotz in New Jersey where, as a resident of New Jersey, Hotz cannot claim a lack of personal jurisdiction. Which I'll bet a dollar to your nickel is precisely what they'll do on the very first business day if and after the Court upholds Hotz' position. But it won't come to that. Hotz will most certainly lose on his motion and will have to answer SCEA's complaint in California. The odds on any other outcome are 1000 to 1.

If this is what you think is brilliant lawyering, then you must have low standards for both brilliance and lawyering.

And if, as you claim, Hotz is "just a man in another court preceeding [sic]" and isn't positioning himself as a defender of the rights of gamers everywhere with a case that, if he prevails, may set a precedent from which all gamers will also benefit, then why is he using his case to solicit donations to help fund his legal defense? If he is in fact "just a man in another court preceeding [sic]," then he can do as all other run-of-the-mill defendants do and pay his attorney fees out of his own pocket.

 

[JDKJ]

This guy is good, he has certanly played his card right in legal regard. Although it's obviously untrue... right?

I, for one, have only heard about the Japanese sony. I honestly (I'm serious!) had no idea there was a sony in calaforna. When did that get there? Plus I threw those manuals in the trash as well.

Did you honestly think that a corporation like Sony does business in the United States from halfway around the the globe and doesn't establish a subsidiary in the United States to conduct its business here on its behalf? Can you name one major Japanese corporation that hasn't done likewise? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare that would result from attempting to run a billion dollar business in the United States from halfway around the globe? C'mon, man.

 

[Carbo]

And even in the unlikely event that the Court agrees with Hotz and his half-baked legal theories, the case will not, as you seem to think, have to be picked up by Sony Japan. SCEA will simply file their suit against Hotz in New Jersey where, as a resident of New Jersey, Hotz cannot claim a lack of personal jurisdiction. Which I'll bet a dollar to your nickel is precisely what they'll do on the very first business day if and after the Court upholds Hotz' position. But it won't come to that. Hotz will most certainly lose on his motion and will have to answer SCEA's complaint in California. The odds on any other outcome are 1000 to 1.

If this is what you think is brilliant lawyering, then you must have low standards for both brilliance and lawyering.

SCEA are above all else banking on keeping the case withing Cali bounds recently going so far as to change their TOS agreements to reflect the notion that any court precedings take place over there. Moreover what Hotz's lawyers argue for is whether or not SCEA are the right people to sue him due to disputed licenses and that license holdings are majorly videogame related, something which Hotz's code has nothing to do with.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805

If this is what you think is brilliant lawyering, then you must have low standards for both brilliance and lawyering.

I see you haven't played Ace Attorney.

 

[JDKJ]

Bullshit.

He must have played a PS1 game at some point and MUST have noticed the "Sony Computer Entertainment of America" below the PS1 logo.

This argument doesn't hold water.

Proove it.

America has this very silly law system where the burden of proof lies on the accuser. And it has to be 100% conclusive proof with none of speculative claims.

Any claims you make based on assumptions without photographical/audio/video evidence are speculative, thus playing idiot in the American court works often.


I can go as far to say, if Sony does not prove he could have found out about the american branch name based upon the evidence of actions he did. They are quite screwed.

Actually, in no American court system is the burden of proof "100% conclusive proof." That would be an unattainable standard of proof. Not even prosecutors in criminal matters, where defendants face loss of liberty and perhaps even loss of life, is the burden of proof "100% conclusive proof." Rather, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." And the burden of proof in civil matters is less than that. It is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence."

And the burden of proof in a civil matter does not always lie with the plaintiff. In many court systems in the United States that burden can shift to the defendant. For example, once the plaintiff has made out its so-called prima facie case (i.e., if the proceedings where to be halted at that particular point in time, the plaintiff would clearly win on the evidence thus far presented), the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.

American jurisprudence is a highly technical matter. You should be reluctant to voice opinions on those matters unless you are somewhat versed in those matters and, at a minimum, are reasonably certain about the validity of your opinion. The trained legal eye can spot the legal bullshit artist from a mile away.

 

[JDKJ]

And even in the unlikely event that the Court agrees with Hotz and his half-baked legal theories, the case will not, as you seem to think, have to be picked up by Sony Japan. SCEA will simply file their suit against Hotz in New Jersey where, as a resident of New Jersey, Hotz cannot claim a lack of personal jurisdiction. Which I'll bet a dollar to your nickel is precisely what they'll do on the very first business day if and after the Court upholds Hotz' position. But it won't come to that. Hotz will most certainly lose on his motion and will have to answer SCEA's complaint in California. The odds on any other outcome are 1000 to 1.

If this is what you think is brilliant lawyering, then you must have low standards for both brilliance and lawyering.

SCEA are above all else banking on keeping the case withing Cali bounds recently going so far as to change their TOS agreements to reflect the notion that any court precedings take place over there. Moreover what Hotz's lawyers argue for is whether or not SCEA are the right people to sue him due to disputed licenses and that license holdings are majorly videogame related, something which Hotz's code has nothing to do with.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805

If this is what you think is brilliant lawyering, then you must have low standards for both brilliance and lawyering.

I see you haven't played Ace Attorney.

Thanks for referring me to groklaw. I'd already familiarized myself with what groklaw has to say on the matter. And a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction has nothing to do with whether or not you're being sued by the right party. That would be more properly addressed in a motion to dismiss for naming the wrong party in interest.

Moreover, one of SCEA's claims against Hotz is based on an alleged violation of the DMCA. That claim has absolutely nothing to do with videogame licensing. But it does have everything to do with Hotz' code-cracking.

Yes, being an attorney by profession, the last thing I'd want to do with my spare time is play Ace Attorney. But I'll challenge you to a game of Madden anytime. Twenty bucks a game, just to keep it interesting?

 

[CommanderKirov]

Bullshit.

He must have played a PS1 game at some point and MUST have noticed the "Sony Computer Entertainment of America" below the PS1 logo.

This argument doesn't hold water.

Proove it.

America has this very silly law system where the burden of proof lies on the accuser. And it has to be 100% conclusive proof with none of speculative claims.

Any claims you make based on assumptions without photographical/audio/video evidence are speculative, thus playing idiot in the American court works often.


I can go as far to say, if Sony does not prove he could have found out about the american branch name based upon the evidence of actions he did. They are quite screwed.

Actually, in no American court system is the burden of proof "100% conclusive proof." That would be an unattainable standard of proof. Not even prosecutors in criminal matters, where defendants face loss of liberty and perhaps even loss of life, is the burden of proof "100% conclusive proof." Rather, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." And the burden of proof in civil matters is less than that. It is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence."

And the burden of proof in a civil matter does not always lie with the plaintiff. In many court systems in the United States that burden can shift to the defendant. For example, once the plaintiff has made out its so-called prima facie case (i.e., if the proceedings where to be halted at that particular point in time, the plaintiff would clearly win on the evidence thus far presented), the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.

American jurisprudence is a highly technical matter. You should be reluctant to voice opinions on those matters unless you are somewhat versed in those matters and, at a minimum, are reasonably certain about the validity of your opinion. The trained legal eye can spot the legal bullshit artist from a mile away.

Blimey welll that's nothing what I have been told. Sorry than, I was gravely missinformed concering the American Justice system.

 

[JDKJ]

If George keeps up this obvious bullshit act, he might actually win (or at least get an acquittal). Who woulda thought?

What's more likely to happen is that the next time he passes his Legal Defense Fund Hat around, all those folks who thought he was some sort of gallant defender of consumer rights willing to take on the evil Big Corporation will by then finally realize that he's nothing more than a complete bullshit artist and his hat will contain nothing more than a quarter, two dimes, three nickels, and forty-seven pennies.

I think you'd be surprised. I didn't give the guy a cent, but this is pure entertainment at it's finest. This lawsuit is basically Sony throwing a hissy fit with George taunting them. Until Sony stops throwing a hissy fit, it serves them right to have some bullshit served up.

Besides, jurisdiction is important to establish. Depending on the state laws, one could be harsher than another. I don't know so I can only assume California has some pretty strict IP laws since that's where Hollywood is and all. I also assume if jurisdiction isn't established in California, it will be established in New Jersey, which again assuming, they have less strict IP laws. Don't let the sheer stupidity of George's argument fool you. If he's willing to risk perjury for it, you have to know his lawyers have pretty concrete backing. This type of shit happens all the time.

If California is in fact a more favorable forum for SCEA, it probably has more to do with Silicon Valley (which is located in the same county where the case currently resides) than Hollywood. At the same time, California has some of the most pro-consumer and anti-corporation courts in the country. Certainly more anti-corporation than the courts of New Jersey. It may well be nothing more that SCEA being conveniently located a short drive away from the courthouse. Who knows?

And, yes, I am well aware that litigants can and often do bend the truth to fit their own selfish needs, even under risk of perjury. But there's a point at which the bending begins to work to their disadvantage. Hotz' feigned ignorance comes close to that point, if you ask me. But it's his nuts in SCEA's ViseGrips, not mine. If he and his attorney think that having him play the role of a retarded moron works well for them, then more power to them.

Actually I can tell you why they want the case in California so badly. Historically, California seems to be the only State in the United States to take video game related cases seriously. If the case were heard in New Jersey, the court would have a jury that would be less educated about the way video game companies or hacking, or the laws pretaining the aformentioned. It's just a more fair trial in California because the Judge will go through the case evidence more precisely.

It may not even be about desperately wanting the case to be heard in California. SCEA's EULAs and TOSs contain clauses requiring that disputes arising from those EULAs and TOSs be brought in San Mateo County (one of those infamously unfair "forum selection clauses"). They could have concluded, and perhaps rightly so, that they had no choice but to file in San Mateo County. To do anything other than to file in San Mateo County would conceviably be setting themselves up for the counter-claim that they themselves weren't abiding by their own EULA and TOS terms.

 

[Giest4life]

Apparently, I'm one of the few that agree with that guy. I actually didn't know Sony Computer Entertainment of America existed....

 

[JDKJ]

Apparently, I'm one of the few that agree with that guy. I actually didn't know Sony Computer Entertainment of America existed....

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

 

[Giest4life]

Apparently, I'm one of the few that agree with that guy. I actually didn't know Sony Computer Entertainment of America existed....

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Agreed with pretty much this: "But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment." Why not? I didn't pay good money to read the goddamn agreement. I paid good money to play the damn thing. And I will blame Sony for having such a retarded agreement.

 

[JDKJ]

Apparently, I'm one of the few that agree with that guy. I actually didn't know Sony Computer Entertainment of America existed....

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Agreed with pretty much this: "But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment." Why not? I didn't pay good money to read the goddamn agreement. I paid good money to play the damn thing. And I will blame Sony for having such a retarded agreement.

Unfortunately, by mere virtue of the fact that you either accessed or used the software in your PS3, you thereby agreed to the retarded agreement and therefore are contractually bound to its terms unless you have a winning argument in either law or fact as to why you shouldn't be so bound. Which, to me, suggests an amount of retardation in failing to read the retarded agreement in the first place.

 

[Misterian]

For some reason, I find that impossible to believe.

If he didn't know about Sony of America, I trust he had a pleasent sleep from whatever cyro tube he's been frozen in.

 

[Sentox6]

Having been a PS3 owner for sometime around release, I haven't ever felt screwed. You only feel screwed if you're trying to cheat the system and do things with your console you aren't supposed to.

Or, you know, if you regularly use a feature on your console that is suddenly removed by an update required to use a separate feature on said console.

That seems kind of like being screwed as well. But I'm guessing the removed feature wasn't important to you, and therefore no one else should be upset either. Obviously.

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Assuming that's an accurate reproduction, I don't see SCEA mentioned anywhere in there. SCE is Japan-based.

 

[Illyasviel]

Agreed with pretty much this: "But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment." Why not? I didn't pay good money to read the goddamn agreement. I paid good money to play the damn thing. And I will blame Sony for having such a retarded agreement.

Willful ignorance is still ignorance. Ignorance is not an excuse. Too bad, so sad.

 

[Defense]

Apparently, I'm one of the few that agree with that guy. I actually didn't know Sony Computer Entertainment of America existed....

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Agreed with pretty much this: "But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment." Why not? I didn't pay good money to read the goddamn agreement. I paid good money to play the damn thing. And I will blame Sony for having such a retarded agreement.

That's your fault entirely, it's not Sony's responsibility to make you read the ToS.

JDKJ and AzrealMaximillion are quickly becoming my favorite members on this site. Thanks for showing everyone that Geohot isn't just the heroic underdog fighting against the big bad corporation.

 

[JDKJ]

Having been a PS3 owner for sometime around release, I haven't ever felt screwed. You only feel screwed if you're trying to cheat the system and do things with your console you aren't supposed to.

Or, you know, if you regularly use a feature on your console that is suddenly removed by an update required to use a separate feature on said console.

That seems kind of like being screwed as well. But I'm guessing the removed feature wasn't important to you, and therefore no one else should be upset either. Obviously.

But if you've ever bought a PS3 console and bothered to read the license agreement that comes in the box, you would have been aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment because the opening paragraphs of that agreement state:

"PLEASE READ THIS SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY TO UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

ACCESS TO OR USE OF THE SYSTEM SOFTWARE IN THE SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC. ("SCE")'S PlayStation®3 COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM UNIT ("PS3? system") IS EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS AGREEMENT IS A CONTRACT WITH SCE."

Now, if you wanna be like Hotz and claim that you never bothered to read the agreement or any of the other documents that came with your PS3 and which make countless references to Sony Computer Entertainment, then fine. I guess that's your choice to make. But don't thereafter try to blame anyone but yourself for not being aware of the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Assuming that's an accurate reproduction, I don't see SCEA mentioned anywhere in there. SCE is Japan-based.

Yes, SCE is based in Japan. But whether based in Japan or in Timbuktu, the EULA still puts the lie to Hotz' claim that the only corporate entity of which he could have been aware was Sony Corporation (Japan).

And while I'll agree with you that to advertise a particular feature of a product and then to remove that feature after sale of the product is to screw the consumer, unfortunately Sony (Timbuktu) did reserve the right to do so. Now, if you want to sue them for false advertising (as hundreds of PS3 owners have done in a dozen different class actions), then fine. That strikes me as a fair and reasonable response. What doesn't seem at all fair or reasonable is to take the law into your own hands à la Hotz and get to code-cracking in violation of your agreement with the licensor and their property rights. If you make that choice and Sony gets to cracking your nuts, I ain't shedding a tear for you.

And don't get me wrong. I'm no fan at all of EULAs. I find them to be generally one-sided, unfair, and, in many instances, down-right unconscionable. But for those I find too bitter to swallow and stomach, I do what everyone else has the right to do: I don't enter into the agreement and do without the license to use the product. Or, if I feel I absolutely must have use of the product, I suck up the risk of being screwed and go ahead with what I know is a bad bargain. But having done so, I know I ain't got no one but myself to blame when the bargain bites me in the ass.