Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Yeah, I can confirm. The outage can be comparable to a maintenance issue, nobody will know.carnege4 said:
And Anonymous, let me worry about my own responsibilities when it comes the policy signing. Lighten up and live, do something outside that doesn't require staring at a glowing rectangle.
Yeah, I kind of blew a fuse when I wanted to get online and have fun to get away from this.deserteagleeye said:
Sigh... I wish there was an Anonymous site we could go to and flame... Make our words sting a bit more. Then again, they'd probably just filter EVERYTHING they get into "HATE MAIL" folders after this charade...
I think Anonymous is a bunch of hipocrits and idiots, who act when it only serves them, under the guise of fighting for 'people's rights'. And as much as I hate them, I'm all for this. Even though committing crimes in-validates their argument.
You arent looking at this from a legal standpoint, The only way a EULA can be enforced is if the Issuer can prove that the purchaiser acepted the terms of the EULA, the problem with a shrinkwrap contract is that that almost never happens.JDKJ said:
cases that uphold EULA shrinkwrap contracts almost always have other determining factors, such as the one you stated where a return policy was issued the customer had the option to return it or where a consumer profited directly from the misuse of the software.
The issue here is that Sony is blatantly ignoring fair trade laws that prohibit this in almost all us states. (i cant name one that they arent but im sure there is one)
The store can refuse nto accept the return but sony legally has to give you your money back if you dont want it, they dont. this renders your first example invalid. Even with the examples where consumers are given an out factored in there is no clear frontrunner in America as to these contracts being enforcable.
That's because the world is starting to realise that they're a bunch or arrogant anarchist assholes (Trip-A) who really don't do anything aside from the occassional stall tactic. They break laws because they believe they are above them. No matter how many "Dark Knight"s, "Death Sentence"s, or the million movies about the very same thing where it usually doesn't end well they make people still don't get it.DigitalAtlas said:
And let's say "The Untouchables" who broke many laws to bring the biggest crime lord down in Chicago is a case of necessity. Would an electronic retailer's buisness practice really qualify breaking the law to fight? Anon are cowards. They don't have the energy or the time evidentally (Does anyone remember Gene Simmons? What happened with that) to unite people to fight the legal way. They just say fuck it let's shut down their website for several hours act all mysterious and badass and move on.
NAACP, AARP, LWV, and the fucking NRA have done waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more shit done and they didn't break any laws to do it, not to mention they didn't hide either...pussies.
Shit the west boro people probably get 100,000 death threats a day and they go out and protest! All 12 of them in any given area.
That's the thing. This IS important in the long run. The point of public awareness campaigns is to do exactly what is happening: Inspire others to think about, debate, and take action about something you believe in.eels05 said:
There are larger issues at stake here, basically that Sony's trick of using software to lock hardware in order to get around commonly accepted legal rights of customers (to modify hardware they purchase) by claiming that if the software controls the hardware, protections meant only for software (under the DMCA) suddenly apply to hardware too, is one that could set a legal precedent for literally every type of electronic device on the market.
As has already been mentioned, this isn't really about hackers and consoles: It's about copyright law. And I promise you, there is a definite need for more public awareness of abusive copyright practices by large corporations.
I've supported Anon in their last few crusades but this is one I'm not behind. People are so quick to jump to judgment about Sony and I really don't think they've done anything wrong (at least any more so than any other company)
That's just being stupid and wandering into the dangerous part of the internet disguised as a 9 year old.carnege4 said:
Not liking the outcome is not the same as the outcome being "wrong." Your slippery slope example, however, doesn't stand up. Microsoft giving Fox a monopoly on news with their devices would be an example of "collusion," which is already illegal without the technological considerations.ReiverCorrupter said:
Sony's PS3 is not a phone or television or radio. It's a computer designed only to play proprietary software. Saying, "You can only play Sony-approved games on this Sony device" isn't as unreasonable as people are making it. Now, they've already been down this road with the iPhone, and we all know how that ended. Time will lead this down the same path.
(But really, it makes sense that these companies would want to limit what people put on the device. For one, it protects their substantial investment in the product as a platform for selling more products. That's the right of a person that invents something, as far as I've seen history demonstrate (at least until patents expire). For another, it ensures that people aren't downloading problematic, untested software from people who aren't accountable for those mistake, and then Sony is drowning in customer service complaints regarding that software.)
There are a lot of people that do know what this is about, and they still don't care. The fact that you can hear so "many" voices right now is because you're on a website frequented by videogamers, in a topic specifically about this problem. As a result, it's going to seem like everyone cares. They don't.
But I draw a big bold line between "convenience when using a product" and "basic human rights." Regarding a product, you don't truly have any "rights." You have conditional privileges. Your "rights" as a consumer are simple: You deserve to be given adequate and truthful information before you buy a product, and adequate and timely service afterward (including avenues through which to make grievances known). That's it.
This isn't an issue of "rights." It's an issue of "wants." Now, in all likelihood the law is going to come down and say, "Once you buy the thing, you can modify it however you want... but Sony has the right to deny customer service or online access if you do." It'd be a fair and reasonable outcome, and it's the most likely.
But Sony's tactics thus far? They're the same steps any small one-man operation would take to protect an investment. The legal team is doing what every good legal team in the history of ever has done: they're looking at every option available to them to ensure they cover their bases completely.
This isn't some David and Goliath tale that warrants Anonymous's heavy-handed "activism" on behalf of a population that didn't elect them and can't hold them accountable.