It is not my responsibility to abide, or even read suspect material. But, hey, at least some of us are so enlightened that they make up for people like me. Keep that torch burning.Defense said:
Geohot Claims He's Never Heard of Sony Computer Entertainment of America
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
It most certainly is your responsibility. Unless you can point to some reasonable basis upon which the material is "suspect" and aren't merely pulling that claim from 'twixt your arse. And that you seem to be capable of knowing that the material is "suspect" without ever reading it suggests to me that your claim of it being "suspect" comes from nowhere but 'twixt your arse.Giest4life said:
Well, the very fact that I have to read an agreement for a piece of hardware that I legally bought--not leased, not rented--shows that the agreement would most certainly be shit.JDKJ said:
You may have bought the purely hardware components of a game console but what you most certainly did not buy is the software components contained therein. Those -- regardless of whether a 360, a Wii, or a PS3 -- are merely licensed to you for use with Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony -- as the case may be -- retaining all rights of ownership to that software. If you had read your PS3 EULA, you would know that because it clearly states:Giest4life said:
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, all System Software is licensed to users solely for personal, non-commercial use on the PS3? system in the country in which the PS3? system was designed by SCE to operate. . . . You do not have any ownership rights or interests in the System Software. All intellectual property rights therein belong to SCE and its licensors, and all use or access to such System Software shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement . . . ."
There's a good reason why folks are so often advised to "read the fine print."
No one, including myself, can make an argument against the prudence of reading the fine print. However, what is, is not the same as what should be. And I still maintain my point that no one should have to read an agreement for something they legally bought.
If you ask me, I shouldn't have to drag my ass outta bed in the morning and go to a job I despise in order to make a living. I should have been born to independently wealthy parents willing to coddle me in the lap of luxury and finance my passion for marlin fishing and exotic European sport cars. Unfortunately and much to my chagrin, I, too, have discovered that what should be and what is ain't nowhere near the same thing. If wishes were horses, no one would walk anywhere. We'd all be riding.Giest4life said:
And why are you still insisting that you bought the software in your game console? Let me repeat for your benefit: you did not buy that software, you licensed it. You can keep repeating that you bought 'til Hell freezes over but that won't change the fact that you did not buy it, you licensed it.
While I've remained neutral in this whole case (mainly to avoid the massive headache I'd receive having to argue with the people on either side) I've got to say that I don't buy that story one bit. I don't believe a person who is know for hacking PS3's wouldn't know this kind of information. I mean, manuals, video games and other the fact that its common knowledge to anyone who owns a PS3 aside, wouldn't he kneed to know this info as an hacker for region locks and such?
No I'm not buying that one.
No I'm not buying that one.
I am with him on this one the only reason I personally know scea exists is because as a kid I had a PS1 that anouced unskippbly and loudly sony computer entertainment America presents!!!(game name)
I have forgotten which game it was exactly but it was a crash banicoot one (warped or CTR or maybe both
)
I have forgotten which game it was exactly but it was a crash banicoot one (warped or CTR or maybe both
)
Sony should have done what Nintendo does with the Wii and have their name and all the license agreements appear on screen when the console is initially powered up and require a click on "I Agree" in order to proceed any further to actual use of the console. That forecloses the possibility of anyone saying "I didn't know" or "I didn't agree."
Folks really need to drop the whole "They only did it cause sony took off OtherOS!" bullshit. People have been after the PS3 since before it was even released to the public. Just the same as every other console/phone. It just held out longer than most. This guy didn't do shit but take what someone else found and made it public (epeen, y0) But no, people want to feel like Guy fucking Fawkes on the internet.
SCE isn't Japan based. It's parent company Sony is. SCE is the named of a subsidiary that has HQs in Japan, Europe, America, Australia, and S.Korea. And the EULA doesn't have to say which country it represents because it applies to all of the countries it covers, not different versions for the same EULA. And it's not like all that matters because, as I had to explain to another Escapist member, SCEA is a wholly owned subsidiary which by law can act as it's own autonomous company for legal purposes. Which means they can sue without needing to consult their parent company.Sentox6 said:
Valid point. It's good so have an intelligent conversation on the internet for once.JDKJ said:
100% agree. Although Nintendo's hardware is the easiest to hack and the easiest to hide from Nintendo when doing so. We all know about the R4 situation. I think Sony should also do an annual sweep of accounts like Microsoft does, but more frequantly, like once every 3 months.JDKJ said:
I know, it's sad to see that as soon as Hotz called himself a "freedom fighter" he had a whole bunch of idiots looking at him like he's the online Che.Mxrz said:
In what way is this surprising really? As soon as the guy hired a lawyer it ended being a moral question, and started being a legal fight. There is no moral high ground in a court room, just winning, and losing.
One of his strongest cards is the whole freedom fighter thing - after all it's paying his legal bill. But I'd be really surprised if he wasn't just hacking because he could, and is now fighting Sony because otherwise his own ass would be fried.
One of his strongest cards is the whole freedom fighter thing - after all it's paying his legal bill. But I'd be really surprised if he wasn't just hacking because he could, and is now fighting Sony because otherwise his own ass would be fried.
You may want to double check that position. A subsidiary corporate has no inviolable autonomy of its own. It is 100% subject to the will of its parent corporation. The parent may, in its own discretion, give its subsidiary "loose rein" but the parent may take over those reins at any time it sees fit to do so. This reality of corporate governance was clearly articulated by the Supreme Court's decision in Copperweld v. Independence Tube, wherein the Court stated:AzrealMaximillion said:
A parent and its wholly owned subsidiary have a complete unity of interest. Their objectives are common, not disparate; their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousnesses, but one. They are not unlike a multiple team of horses drawing a vehicle under the control of a single driver. With or without a formal "agreement," the subsidiary acts for the benefit of the parent, its sole shareholder. If a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary do ?agree? to a course of action, there is no sudden joining of economic resources that had previously served different interests, and there is no justification for [Sherman Act] § 1 scrutiny. Indeed, the very notion of an "agreement" in Sherman Act terms between a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary lacks meaning. A § 1 agreement may be found when "the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.? American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1139, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946). But in reality a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always have a ?unity of purpose or a common design.? They share a common purpose whether or not the parent keeps a tight rein over the subsidiary; the parent may assert full control at any moment if the subsidiary fails to act in the parent's best interests.
If this was not the legal reality of the parent-subsidiary relationship, then that hack Hotz has an attorney would succeed in his attempt to build a huge Chinese Wall between SCEA and Sony Corporation (Japan). But the argument fails because, as a legal matter, SCEA can't do a damn thing that it's parent twice-removed, Sony Corporation (Japan), doesn't want it to do.
1) I know my games.
2) I know my IT.
3) I had never freaking heard of SCEA as opposed to Sony.
Because keeping track of how a parent company is structured across multiple layers to best optimize their accounting and legal practices does not help me shoot aliens in the head. It is perfectly reasonable that he doesn't know this.
Most companies operate under the assumption that you don't, and know that you don't. They mock this by doing things like bringing up error messages like "You read the EULA in 8 seconds!"
They market the Playstation to adults, but also to minors, who are not capable of understanding an EULA to begin with.
Now, as for "legal loopholes", you all do understand that everything this case is about revolves around legal loopholes on the part of sony in particular, who has spent millions lobbying to maintain laws that allows it to sue people for installing an OS.
For this to be a fair fight, "Hot" would need to spend the next 5 years spending $4M per year over and above the amount Sony puts in in the same 5 years lobbying to edit IP laws which impact his case. This is assuming no other companies are also contributing to Sony friendly causes like the overall judicial process involved in IP rights.
Or we can use the (still reasonable) "I thought they were just Sony" defense.
2) I know my IT.
3) I had never freaking heard of SCEA as opposed to Sony.
Because keeping track of how a parent company is structured across multiple layers to best optimize their accounting and legal practices does not help me shoot aliens in the head. It is perfectly reasonable that he doesn't know this.
Most companies operate under the assumption that you don't, and know that you don't. They mock this by doing things like bringing up error messages like "You read the EULA in 8 seconds!"
They market the Playstation to adults, but also to minors, who are not capable of understanding an EULA to begin with.
Now, as for "legal loopholes", you all do understand that everything this case is about revolves around legal loopholes on the part of sony in particular, who has spent millions lobbying to maintain laws that allows it to sue people for installing an OS.
For this to be a fair fight, "Hot" would need to spend the next 5 years spending $4M per year over and above the amount Sony puts in in the same 5 years lobbying to edit IP laws which impact his case. This is assuming no other companies are also contributing to Sony friendly causes like the overall judicial process involved in IP rights.
Or we can use the (still reasonable) "I thought they were just Sony" defense.