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

[CUnk]

I too was unaware of the distinction between Sony America and just plain Sony. I've always figured Sony had some sort of presence in the US but it never occurred to me that it was a separate company.

I mean, is there a Japanese version of Microsoft?

Also, I don't recall ever playing a game branded by SCEA. It's either something I've never done or just haven't noticed because who cares?

 

[Gindil]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

 

[WorldCritic]

Either he's an idiot, or he's a bad liar. Let me know when he loses.

 

[crystalsnow]

I think Geohot is actually just here to amuse us at this point.

 

[yoshiru]

I hope SONY lawyers don't read this thread because all they'd have to do is casually get Geohotz to admit he's played the american version of FF7. Because it clearly says Sony Computer Entertainment of America very unskip-ably.

Sigh, sony is being an asshole about this whole thing. But feigning ignorance will do nothing but shit to the court system. If geohotz wants to be a martyr about the whole thing, he needs to legit be a martyr. I have no sympathy for someone who breaks an unjust law without accepting the punishment that comes with it.

This one lady I heard about put her kids in a school in a different district because it was better (commendable). But she SAID they lived with her father (who lived in the good district) and the kids did not. So they found out and told her to pay 33k in back tuition which she is not fighting in the court system. She needs to understand something: If you want something, you have to work for it. Whether that be actually having the kids live with their grandfather, or happily paying 33k, she needs to accept fate.

Everyone's an asshole. Congratulations, Yahtzee, you have removed my faith in people.

 

[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.

 

[yoshiru]

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.

Anyway, this guy seems like a right knob. Take the git down!

Yeah, we have that in Sweden too I think. Something about being your own responsibility and problem to follow the law, not someone else's...Whatever, I'm never gonna weep for these mafioso-companies and their armies of fast-talking penguins.

Yeah, that's why our (The USAs) court systems are absolute crap. This probably won't fly, but if it did, I wouldn't be surprised. There are two ways our courts are used:

1: People break the law and then use the courts to minimize their punishment to an absolute minimum.

2: People sue other people because they're too lazy to work hard and make money.

^That's pretty much it.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

???
How so?

Please. Don't insult my intelligence with 'burden of proof' arguments.
I could easily say to you 'how is Geohotz now in the right?'.
He modified a private console in direct conflict with a ToS and a EULA that he allegedly agreed to. He then proceed to release said console modification tools onto the internet - where they have been used to pirate Sony-affiliated products.
Those are the slightly abridged facts of the case.
Sony have the legal upper hand.

 

[Roboto]

Never heard of SCEA in my life before this article.

 

[antipunt]

Every time I enter a Geohot thread here, I get to see that pic again.

 

[Danz D Man]

???
How so?

Please. Don't insult my intelligence with 'burden of proof' arguments.
Sony have the legal upper hand.

You say, as you insult his intelligence.
"I'm smarter than you because I don't let you prove otherwise!"

 

[teebeeohh]

legal battles are so fucking awesome, this kinda stuff always reminds of a princess bride(you know which scene

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

You say, as you insult his intelligence.
"I'm smarter than you because I don't let you prove otherwise!"

Cool context bro.
I'm sure if I responded to this with "??? How so?" you would be equally as charitable.
He, or indeed, she, placed burden of proof unto me, and in my post I attempt to justify my standpoint with the bare facts of the case, ending with a reiteration of my point. At no point do I stop him, or, indeed, her, from responding.

EDIT: Also, on another note, in this case a Bb, do you expect me to fucking not answer, and instead pose a question to a question like an asinine fuckwit, just to politely invite someone else to join into a circle of questioning friendship? If I was being Socratic - I would constantly ask why, and my answers would be the questions, but because I'm trying to be as based in reality as possible I lay out the basest facts that I know that cover all of the initial charges as lain down by the Sony legal team.

 

[JDKJ]

He's not right. He's less wrong than Sony, however. So there you have it.

He might be less 'wrong' than Sony morally, from your perspective.
In terms of actual legality - despite the fact that both cases are pretty shaky - Sony have quite the upper hand.

???
How so?

+1

Sony is fucked. How exactly are they going to prove something intangible like prior knowledge of a company's existence?

I haven't actually looked at the legal standard, but I'm willing to bet that it, like most legal standards that require proof of "scienter" (i.e., knowledge), doesn't require proof of actual knowledge. I'd image it states something along the lines of "knew or should have known." If it can be proved that a reasonable person under the same circumstances should have knowledge of a fact, then knowledge of the fact can be imputed to the defendant. This why so-called "willful blindness" is usually not a good defense. You can't stick your head in the sand like an ostrich and then claim ignorance of that which you would have been aware had you not stuck your head in the sand. Therefore and despite Hotz' insistence of ignorance, I suspect that Sony need only prove that there was sufficient information available to Hotz that would have informed a reasonable person of the fact in order to impute knowledge of the fact to Hotz.