Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Eep, why'd it post here!?!?! Curse you Escapist message boards!

 

[Callate]

Given that "we do not forgive" is built right into Anon's slogans, would anything they thought to address ever be anything other than "wholly unforgivable"?

Can a loose alliance of hackers ever give anything their "undivided attention"? And if they do, does that mean that Gene Simmons, et. al. are off the hook?

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip/quote]

snip/quote]

snip

snip

LoL, my favorite bit is how you had no idea about it till I called you on it. But, that is how we learn. I can admit when I'm wrong, though that just means I have to edit my arguments from here on in. It's all good. I had fun with this back and forth, but I need to get ready for work. Cheers and thanks for the mentally stimulating debate. I look forward to our next back and forth.

Wrong, again. This isn't the first time I've been forced to dissuade a member of the Escapist community that console EULAs aren't much different than PC operating system EULAs by pasting the Windows7 EULA. I can go back to my profile's list of posts, dig it out and re-post it, if you don't believe me. Or, alternatively, you can save me the leg work by visiting my profile and digging it out yourself from my list of posts. There ain't but 800 or so posts. Should be an easy find.

I never said it was different. I just know that I am allowed to create my own software for the PC so long as it isn't malicious in nature and knowingly causes harm to other people's systems.

I think you may have confused my post with someone else's though.

I may have misinterpreted the substance of your post but I did not confuse you with another poster. You asserted a fact, followed immediately by asking a question by stating "no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony" (despite the absence of a question mark, I assumed it was a question). I pointed you to the fact that Microsoft's EULA for Windows7 does indeed by its terms "lock out" the possibility of some user-created features and, in so doing, makes their OS's EULA remarkably similar to Sony's console EULA. Am I missing something? And if it's the possibility that Microsift can't change the functionality of their OS post-sale, you'd be wrong on that count, too. They reserve the right to do so in their EULA, just as Sony does. Shall I go fetch the relevant terms for you?

 

[Illyasviel]

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

You heard it here first guys. The American judicial system is communism. Subpeonas? Communism. Discovery? Communism. Hiring or having an attorney? Grade A motherfuckin' communism.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

They're stopping someone from sharing pirated goods through his root key, which is under contract what you cant do, and are trying to protect profit, like any business would. How is that interfering with someone's life? Lets put you in sony's shoes. You made a product that you're selling for large amounts of profit (I know, Sony loses on each PS3, just stick with me), and I find a way to take even a small fraction of that away. Wouldnt you try to stop me?

Also, I would wholeheartedly disagree that the WBC doesnt try to interfere with others lives. I think the recent standings when they're picketing funerals of dead soldiers and little girls that died in senseless acts of violence are interfering with someone's life (or lack their of). Also, they go on violent tirades against those they dont like, and I can honestly say a friend of mine who is homosexual has been assaulted by a few of those psychotic fucks.

 

[FangShadow]

On the one hand I whole heartedly agree that if you buy it its yours. If you wanna tinker with it and cross wires, that is your right as that was your money.

However, Hacking should not come at the cost of others. If you want to hack your ps3 to hell to play your homebrew and screw with your saves, fine. But don't bring you hacking upon others to give yourself an unfair advantage in multiplayer games.

I also don't care much for piracy (or DRM as both contribute to the endless cycle of suck)
so I don't believe hacking should be used for that purpose.

That said, I don't think anyone is right here. I don't think that geohotz should have posted the key online (mainly because of the situation going on, I think he should have suspected this kind of heat from sony)

But sony, is going overboard requesting info from others as well as paypal info.

I think that no matter how the verdict goes, nothing good can come out of it.

(sorry to be a bit of a downer and a dick. I apologize)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

But if Ford decided to license the car like that, it still wouldn't hold up; this court case is a chance to get a court of law to say "you know, these EULA things are unconscionable contracts, and are clearly invalid. Stop trying to enforce them." It's not as far fetched as it sounds, either; EULAs almost never hold up when they reach a court of law, they just don't make it that far very often because of how much money the software publishers have to throw at lawyers, who then tie up the proceedings long enough to keep their BS from getting called. What we have here is an opportunity to give some rights back to consumers. How can you possibly be against that?

Unfortunately, EULAs aren't as unconscionable or invalid as you claim and there are a number of court decisions upholding their validity and enforceability. They may not be "fair" and may be horribly one-sided but that alone doesn't make them unenforceable as a matter of law. That just makes them a shitty deal for the consumer. But just because a deal is a shitty one doesn't make it an unenforceable one.

It's highly dependent on the EULA in question; for every case where one gets upheld, there's another case where it gets thrown out. The type of EULA involved in boxed game purchases is absolutely an unconscionable form of a contract of adhesion, as is what Sony is trying to get Geohot under, assuming he's telling the truth about not having signed up for a PSN account. Even if he did, it's still not a definite win for Sony.

That's not true. You can look up any EULA online now. Hell, I can probably walk into a video game store and request to look at a copy of the EULA before purchasing anything. The EULA is not the shrink wrap contract it used to be. You can find a way to read it without spending a penny on anything. Geohotz can say he didn't sign up for the PSN and didn't agree to the EULA, but Sony could easily state that they have it up for free on their website to read at anytime. It's also in the box before you turn the damn thing on so there's no excuse for Hotz here.

I'm not sure if even that holds up; sure, you can find the contract if you seek it out, but it's so far separated from the actual purchase that it's still a shrinkwrap contract. To put it this way, if the local GM dealership sold you a car which you paid for in full with cash, without making you sign anything but the registration, you drove the car off the lot, and then once you tried to start it up again to leave your house, it refused to start unless you agreed to an entirely different contract, would the fact that the contract was available on a website that the dealership neglected to tell you existed make it any less of a shrinkwrap contract?

 

[Giddi]

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

You heard it here first guys. The American judicial system is communism. Subpeonas? Communism. Discovery? Communism. Hiring or having an attorney? Communism.

Yeh, I was with you until we started with reds under the bed.
Would you like to ask Sony for their birth certificates next?

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

Yeah, it's one thing to counter a hateful website like Westboro Baptist Church, but riding in liek you're a super hero employing "An eye for an eye" is just... Well... I just can't support it. As it is, I want Hotz and SONY to just shake hands, come to a comfy medium, and that's it

And it's not like the inevitable blow-back is gonna win Hotz any brownie points with the Court. I can see the Judge saying, "These are the people who side against Sony and this is how they show their support? By taking over my job and passing their own judgment and sentence? I don't think so. Where that Hotz kid? Bring him in here. I wanna show him and his supporters who the real HNIC is."

Too true. If Anon does anything during this case it can and will be used against Hotz. Anon will be doing more hurting then helping here. And great of of "HNIC". Did not see that coming.

He can be held to account for something someone did, who has no relation to him, that he did not endorse? I'm sorry, but no.

It's not that he'd be held accountable for Anon's actions. That was never said. It's that if Anon directly attacks the courts or SCEA, it will make the case much harder for Hotz. He did call himself a "freedom fighter", Anon likes to make the same claim all the time. It`s public appeal. In a case like this it can turn a case. If the people who support Hotz seem to be nothing but wanna be Guy Fawkes and hackers who were Che Guevera shirts that call themselves revolutionaries, it makes the case much harder for Hotz to claim innocence. It`s politics.

 

[Aeshi]

Yeah trust Anonymous to attack anyone who doesn't worship hackers as gods...

Why the fuck has nobody put a bullet in them yet?

 

[wrightguy0]

so is this why my PS3 wouldn't connect to the network so i could play online? :\

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip/quote]

snip/quote]

snip

snip

LoL, my favorite bit is how you had no idea about it till I called you on it. But, that is how we learn. I can admit when I'm wrong, though that just means I have to edit my arguments from here on in. It's all good. I had fun with this back and forth, but I need to get ready for work. Cheers and thanks for the mentally stimulating debate. I look forward to our next back and forth.

Wrong, again. This isn't the first time I've been forced to dissuade a member of the Escapist community that console EULAs aren't much different than PC operating system EULAs by pasting the Windows7 EULA. I can go back to my profile's list of posts, dig it out and re-post it, if you don't believe me. Or, alternatively, you can save me the leg work by visiting my profile and digging it out yourself from my list of posts. There ain't but 800 or so posts. Should be an easy find.

I never said it was different. I just know that I am allowed to create my own software for the PC so long as it isn't malicious in nature and knowingly causes harm to other people's systems.

I think you may have confused my post with someone else's though.

I may have misinterpreted the substance of your post but I did not confuse you with another poster. You asserted a fact, followed immediately by asking a question by stating "no one locks out the features on a PC with software, why is it different with Sony" (despite the absence of a question mark, I assumed it was a question). I pointed you to the fact that Microsoft's EULA for Windows7 does indeed by its terms "lock out" the possibility of some user-created features and, in so doing, makes their OS's EULA remarkably similar to Sony's console EULA. Am I missing something?

Ah, I see. Point taken. It is different in the one regard that is talked about in this case though. You can create software that you can install onto your PC and distribute for others to install, without getting permission from Microsoft.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

Yeah, it's one thing to counter a hateful website like Westboro Baptist Church, but riding in liek you're a super hero employing "An eye for an eye" is just... Well... I just can't support it. As it is, I want Hotz and SONY to just shake hands, come to a comfy medium, and that's it

And it's not like the inevitable blow-back is gonna win Hotz any brownie points with the Court. I can see the Judge saying, "These are the people who side against Sony and this is how they show their support? By taking over my job and passing their own judgment and sentence? I don't think so. Where that Hotz kid? Bring him in here. I wanna show him and his supporters who the real HNIC is."

Too true. If Anon does anything during this case it can and will be used against Hotz. Anon will be doing more hurting then helping here. And great of of "HNIC". Did not see that coming.

He can be held to account for something someone did, who has no relation to him, that he did not endorse? I'm sorry, but no.

It's not that he'd be held accountable for Anon's actions. That was never said. It's that if Anon directly attacks the courts or SCEA, it will make the case much harder for Hotz. He did call himself a "freedom fighter", Anon likes to make the same claim all the time. It`s public appeal. In a case like this it can turn a case. If the people who support Hotz seem to be nothing but wanna be Guy Fawkes and hackers who were Che Guevera shirts that call themselves revolutionaries, it makes the case much harder for Hotz to claim innocence. It`s politics.

My point was that it is irrelivent to case procedings. If Sony tries to present it, it can very easily be thrown out as irrelivent. What they did, in the name of him, is not relivent to the procedings, if he didn't call for it.

 

[Baresark]

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

You heard it here first guys. The American judicial system is communism. Subpeonas? Communism. Discovery? Communism. Hiring or having an attorney? Grade A motherfuckin'
communism.

Well, the first thing they did was take away property rights, and the second they instituted a legal system that allowed them to do it as they saw fit. It's more like fascism though.

 

[Illyasviel]

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

You heard it here first guys. The American judicial system is communism. Subpeonas? Communism. Discovery? Communism. Hiring or having an attorney? Grade A motherfuckin' communism.

I never said anything about the justice system, you chode, I said SONY.

...really?

And what do you think Sony is using to take action against Geohot? I can sure as hell tell you its not with a man in a trench coat hiding a firearm.

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

You heard it here first guys. The American judicial system is communism. Subpeonas? Communism. Discovery? Communism. Hiring or having an attorney? Grade A motherfuckin'
communism.

Well, the first thing they did was take away property rights, and the second they instituted a legal system that allowed them to do it as they saw fit. It's more like fascism though.

Jesus Christ I must've been living under a rock all this time! All along, I thought all I had to do if I didn't agree to their contract and didn't want "my property" taken away was not use their product in the first place! I didn't know I had to buy a PS3 and use it! And I thought the judicial system had been here since like... forever! I didn't know they were a subsidiary owned by Sony!

Goddamn Illysaviel, go back to school!

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

But if Ford decided to license the car like that, it still wouldn't hold up; this court case is a chance to get a court of law to say "you know, these EULA things are unconscionable contracts, and are clearly invalid. Stop trying to enforce them." It's not as far fetched as it sounds, either; EULAs almost never hold up when they reach a court of law, they just don't make it that far very often because of how much money the software publishers have to throw at lawyers, who then tie up the proceedings long enough to keep their BS from getting called. What we have here is an opportunity to give some rights back to consumers. How can you possibly be against that?

Unfortunately, EULAs aren't as unconscionable or invalid as you claim and there are a number of court decisions upholding their validity and enforceability. They may not be "fair" and may be horribly one-sided but that alone doesn't make them unenforceable as a matter of law. That just makes them a shitty deal for the consumer. But just because a deal is a shitty one doesn't make it an unenforceable one.

It's highly dependent on the EULA in question; for every case where one gets upheld, there's another case where it gets thrown out. The type of EULA involved in boxed game purchases is absolutely an unconscionable form of a contract of adhesion, as is what Sony is trying to get Geohot under, assuming he's telling the truth about not having signed up for a PSN account. Even if he did, it's still not a definite win for Sony.

That's not true. You can look up any EULA online now. Hell, I can probably walk into a video game store and request to look at a copy of the EULA before purchasing anything. The EULA is not the shrink wrap contract it used to be. You can find a way to read it without spending a penny on anything. Geohotz can say he didn't sign up for the PSN and didn't agree to the EULA, but Sony could easily state that they have it up for free on their website to read at anytime. It's also in the box before you turn the damn thing on so there's no excuse for Hotz here.

I'm not sure if even that holds up; sure, you can find the contract if you seek it out, but it's so far separated from the actual purchase that it's still a shrinkwrap contract. To put it this way, if the local GM dealership sold you a car which you paid for in full with cash, without making you sign anything but the registration, you drove the car off the lot, and then once you tried to start it up again to leave your house, it refused to start unless you agreed to an entirely different contract, would the fact that the contract was available on a website that the dealership neglected to tell you existed make it any less of a shrinkwrap contract?

I really think the car analogies need to stop as they really don`t work here. Listen when you drive a car off the lot, you`ve used the car. That`s why cars lose 15% in their value as soon as their off the lot. The difference is that when you buy a PS3 you don`t have to agree to anything until you turn on the console and try to use online. You could buy a PS3, look at the EULA online before opening the box and return the PS3 if you don`t like the EULA. We live in a world where you can find ALL EULAs online. Its called clicking on the support page of any website linked to an electronic product that has online capabilities. You can`t exactly say the same thing about cars which is why these analogies need to stop.

 

[Echo136]

Just about everything Sony is doing to take action against Geo is going against the fourth amendment, that's grade A communism.


I'm with the hackers.

Wow, you either dont know what the Fourth Amendment is, or dont know what Communism is. All those searches were obtained legally in court. Also, If anything Geohot could be "accused" of communist acts, i guess, since he's trying to spread around his knowledge of reverse engineering the code of the PS3, while what Sony is doing is classic Capitalism.