Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[JDKJ]

the court found that a shrink-wrapped EULA resulted in a binding contract being formed when the purchaser retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period.

you cant return your PS3

you can get stuck with a PS3 that you don't want because you're not inclined to agree with Sony's EULA terms, if you want. That's you. But it ain't me. I'm taking that PS3 back to where I bought it and you can bet, sure as God made lil' green apples, that I ain't getting stuck with it. I do the sticking. Never the other way around.

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.
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.

O.K. Let me put on my attorney bifocals and try to look at this from a legal standpoint:

The terms of Sony's PS3 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.

and further state:

9. GENERAL LEGAL

By using or accessing the System Software, you agree to be bound by all current terms of this Agreement. To access a printable, current copy of this Agreement, go to http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ on your personal computer. SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3? system documentation or manual, or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Terms of Service and User Agreement for SCE's online network, the terms of this Agreement shall control the use of or access to, the System Software.

You'll perhaps notice that agreement to the EULA's terms (both as currently presented and any subsequent changes thereto) occurs upon "using or accessing" the software contained in the PS3. I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where use of or access to the software in the PS3 -- and the binding contract that thereby results -- would be difficult to establish. If Sony is the party seeking enforcement of its EULA, then I can't imagine how they would have ever concluded that they have a prosecutable cause of action against a defendant if they aren't somehow aware of the defendant's use of or access to the software in the console and, therefore, can't somehow establish as a matter of fact that the console in question was somehow used or accessed. Hackers are the perfect example. If Sony knows enough to file suit against you for breach of the "no reverse engineering, no decompilation, no disassembling, no bypassing, disabling, or circumvention of any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism" clause, then they would necessarily know that you used or access their software in so doing because use and/or access is a necessarily step toward that breach. You can't very well hack software without accessing it. Under these circumstances, how difficult can proving use and/or access be? If Sony cam make out a prima facie case that you did in fact hack their software, isn't a necessary corollary of that fact the fact that you must have also used accessed their software?

And, of course, create and log on to a PSN account with a PS3 and that you used the software then lies beyond all dispute.

Proving that a defendant used or accessed the software in a PS3 isn't a particularly narrow hoop to jump through, I would think.

Furthermore and pardon the wall of text, but here's Best Buy's return policy:

Best Buy Store Exchange & Return Policy

To exchange or return an item purchased in one of our stores, bring the item to any Best Buy store. Please follow these guidelines:
Exchange and Return Period

Exchange or return your item anytime from the original purchase date within the timeframe below:

* 14 days for computers, monitors, projectors, camcorders, digital cameras, iPads, tablets and radar detectors
* 30 days for all other products
* 45 days for all products for Reward Zone Program Premier Silver members*


*If you are returning a mobile phone or device with a plan, Best Buy is not responsible for carrier charges incurred after the carrier's cancellation period. Please refer to the terms and conditions of your plan to verify the carrier conditions.
Non-Returnable Items

Some items cannot be returned, including:

* Labor, delivery and/or installation services
* Pre-paid cards such as music, photo, video or phone cards
* Digital content (e.g. music downloads from Napster)
* Pitch In? Card contributions
* Consumable items such as food, drink and batteries
* Items that are damaged or abused
* Items that are missing accessories, such as remote controls, cords and cables
* Etched or otherwise personalized items
* Opened computer software, movies, music and video games can be exchanged for the identical item but cannot be returned for a refund

Original Receipt and Valid Photo ID

Bring the original receipt as well as your valid photo ID for all exchanges, returns, price matches and warranty repair services. Best Buy accepts the following forms of photo identification:

* U.S., Canadian or Mexican driver's license
* U.S. state ID
* Canadian province ID
* U.S. military ID
* Passport

We electronically secure your information solely for the purpose of returns management, in accordance with state and federal laws regarding consumer privacy.
Restocking Fee

There is a 25% restocking fee for special order products.
Promotional Items and Bundles

As a benefit to our customers, Best Buy occasionally offers promotional items and savings with a purchase or enhanced savings on a bundle of items when they are purchased together.

* When a promotional item is returned, the value of the promotional item is deducted from the refund amount. For instance, if you purchase a TV and get a $100 gift card or 50% off of a DVD player, the $100 value of the gift card or the total value of the DVD player would be subtracted from the refund.
* When an item included as part of a promotional bundle is returned, the bundled discount is void and the value of the bundled discount will be applied to the refund. This occasionally results in additional funds being owed to Best Buy. For instance, if your receive $200 in savings when you purchase a laptop and printer together and you return either item, the $200 amount will be subtracted from your refund.

Returning Mobile Phones with Plans

When returning a mobile phone or device with a plan, you are responsible for canceling service with the carrier. When you make the return, simply tell the Best Buy sales associate that you also want to cancel your service.

Failure to discontinue service may result in additional carrier charges. All carrier charges incurred are the full responsibility of the customer.

If you have questions about mobile phone or device returns, please call Best Buy Mobile at 1-877-702-2211 (6:00am-midnight CT).
Refund Method

Your refund will generally be in the same form as the original payment. However, when the item was purchased with cash or with a debit card without a major credit card logo for more than $500, or with a check for more than $250 the refund will be in the form of a check mailed to you within 10 business days. If the item was purchased using debit and the debit card has a major credit card logo, refunds under $250 will be issued as cash; refunds over $250 will be credited back to the card.
Mail-In Rebates

When a product that was purchased when a mail-in rebate was available on the item, the amount of the rebate may be deducted from the refund amount.
Country of Origin

The item must be exchanged or returned in the country in which it was originally purchased.
To Protect Your Personal Data

Please remove all personal data (e.g. computer or wireless phone data) from any exchanged or returned products. Best Buy is not responsible for any personal data left on or in an exchanged or returned product.
Best Buy Discretion

Best Buy reserves the right to deny any return.

Some tests may use a different set of policies. When a different policy is in effect, you will be informed of those differences prior to purchase.
To Return Special Delivery Items, Performance Service Plans, or Black Tie Protection

To exchange or return items that were delivered, such as major appliances, TVs, furniture and included accessories, please call 1-888-BESTBUY (1-888-237-8289).

To return or cancel your Best Buy Performance Service Plan or Black Tie Protection plan, please call 1-888-BESTBUY (1-888-237-8289).
For purchases made at BestBuy.com or Best Buy for Business, please reference the details below.

Policies of BestBuy.com may vary from our in-store policies. Please see the BestBuy.com Return Policy.
Best Buy for Business

Unfortunately, exchanges and returns of BBFB product purchased through our in-store kiosk, catalog, or via www.BestBuyForBusiness.com cannot be processed at stores at this time. A return authorization can be obtained by calling 1-800-373-3050. Open items returns are not accepted. For full details, see the in-store kiosk, catalog, or www.BestBuyForBusiness.com.

Best as I can tell, the only open box items that they will not refund or exchange are those of the BBFB variety. So if I do take my PS3 back to Best Buy because I don't want to agree to the EULA terms, I'll most likely get a refund. It may not be a full refund but it'll be closer to full than not.

 

[Jumplion]

Anonymous are going to do more harm than good, calling it right now. It's just an excuse to make some noise, as "noble" as the intentions are. Anonymous, despite what they claim, are doing nothing to help the consumer. You can't always fight fire with fire.

As someone on the first page so eloquently stated;

So the best way to get Sony to tolerate hackers is to hack Sony sites?

Err...

All this does is prove Sony's point even more, and it will be even harder to negotiate and reason with them when they're already extremely paranoid about their product.

It doesn't matter who "wins" at the end, because the customer will lose regardless.

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip

The problem here is sony offered 3rd party OS's as a feature on their product. Then after people decided to buy their overpriced piece of junk they pull the ol bait and switch on them.

I dunno if this example would work but wouldn't it be like, Dell selling a PC to you and you had the option of loading Linux, Unix, w/e on it, then they released a patch that made it ONLY useable by windows. I mean isn't that kinda what happened here. Sony released a piece of equipment that was being used by Governments and Universities because of its number crunching power and now...its only a game station/bluray player. They could at least offer a refund to the people who they bilked out of their money.

I don't think that is right and why I've never purchased a PS3, or a PSP. I'll stick with my PS2 and keep with Steam on my PC and my Wii/3DS for my gaming needs.

 

[Illyasviel]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I do have a question: Are you asserting that an employee of a corporate person is not, in fact, part of that corporate person?

A better question is exactly what people are concerned about when their "private information" is being revealed to Sony? Every single person who uses the Internet is already datamined to hell and back ( by Google, good guys of the Internet, no less ). What? Is Sony going to start suing people on a case by case basis? Is that what you, anonymous, or whoever is saying?

I'm fair certain Sony's attorneys aren't going to start suing people on Sony's behalf on their volition, and if nobody in Sony except the attorneys know information that could be used to form a lawsuit, who is Sony going to sue?

Stop using fearmongering tactics. I am sick of people preying on the uninformed to garner knee jerk reactions instead of fairly presenting facts as is.

 

[Emergent]

Sorry I dont see how a company big or small taking legal action to protect the basic function of their products as an 'abuse' of anyones rights.
I personally dont see the whole practice of cracking open an ipod,laptop,PS3 or any other piece of equipment to add crap to it and make it do things it wasn't designed to do by its makers as something worth having legal action taken against me for.

I'll try to restate my point, then. Under current U.S. copyright law, if you purchase an electronic device, you are allowed to modify the hardware for pretty much any purpose you wish, but modifying the software for similar purposes is not. What Sony has done is try to circumvent that consumer right (and it is a right, as stated in the DMCA and upheld by the recent apple jailbrake ruling) by designing software that specifically locks out hardware, and then claimed that removing that software for the purpose of exercising one's right to modify the hardware is crime. There's the rub. The law has been settled on this issue, and Sony is trying to ignore it.

As to having your personal credit card numbers, address, phone, and other details turned over to Sony's lawyers simply because someone ELSE has been CHARGED with a crime... it's unconscionable, the judge that allowed them access to that information is most likely unconstitutionally in violation of the Federal Wiretapping Act of 1968 and the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (the information being taken from youtube and paypay is not being used to maintain the rights and property of YOUTUBE and PAYPAY, but of SONY, which is a use of the electronic monitoring by youtube and paypay that is NOT stipulated as legal according to those two acts).

Does that maybe help explain why there is more going on here than what appears on the surface?

 

[JDKJ]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I do have a question: Are you asserting that an employee of a corporate person is not, in fact, part of that corporate person?

A better question is exactly what people are concerned about when their "private information" is being revealed to Sony? Every single person who uses the Internet is already datamined to hell and back ( by Google, good guys of the Internet, no less ). What? Is Sony going to start suing people on a case by case basis? Is that what you, anonymous, or whoever saying?

I'm fair certain Sony's attorneys aren't going to start suing people on Sony's behalf on their volition and if nobody in Sony except the attorneys know information that could be used to form a lawsuit, who is Sony going to sue?

Stop using fearmongering tactics.

An employee of a corporate person isn't a part of that corporate person. Only the shareholder(s) of the corporate person are part of the corporate person.

 

[Sutter Cane]

thinking it in terms of legality, anonymous is participating in illegal activities.
thinking in terms of good vs bad, sony appears to be wearing the horns and anonymous is the knight in shining armor.

i strongly support those who wish to modify their own equipment, and ignoring any form of legality and politics, i can certainly see anonymous's point of view. sony is outright abusing the system.

Thinking in terms of legality, Anonymous is breaking the law.
Thanking in terms of good vs. bad, Anonymous is breaking the law.

Almost all hackers or modders who want to modify their systems do it to enable piracy or to use the hardware in a way that it is not intended. These things are not allowed if you read that nifty little contract you have to accept before going online with your PS3. You can hack the system all you want if you stay offline with it but once you go online, your hacking and piracy gives you an unfair advantage against other players and is a breach of the contract I mentioned above and Sony is well within their right to brick your console and they are only protecting their other customers by doing so. And before people try to dispute this, what exactly would the "innocent" hack be on the PS3? It has web capabilities, plays DVDs and Blu Rays and already lets you access pictures, music and movies from your PC. What exactly do you need to hack this to do additionally? except play pirated games, of course.

Actually the beginning of your post here is conflating morality with legality, which is actually a logical fallacy (learned that from my logic class). Just thought i'd point that out to you. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's bad, and just because something is bad doesn't mean it's illegal

 

[MysticToast]

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)

So you're cool with turning your paypal and web surfing information over to them without being ordered to do so in court?

I don't know the entire story cuz I stopped paying attention lately but on the basis of the core lawsuit here, I support Sony trying to protect their console and PSN.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

My next bet, theyre going to go after Amazonian's for a lil reason of law.

 

[MysticToast]

When reading the article, I can actually agree with Anonymous- that Sony does in fact rip off their customers. Not to a bad degree, but in a way if we can't do anything with our consoles that we bought legally then that's a bit unfair. Before you accuse, let me explain:

My best friend Austin owns a PS3. He likes his games, but the Sony company is so strict on rules, that Austin can't even go online to play multiplayer due to certain policies, or own certain games. It sounds crazy to me, because on Xbox 360 (which I own), you can do pretty much do whatever you like as long as it's legal. Sony makes things so unfair, to a point it seems illegal at times (does that even make sense?)

Care to share an exact example of him not being able to play or own certain games? I have encountered no such thing

 

[BRex21]

the court found that a shrink-wrapped EULA resulted in a binding contract being formed when the purchaser retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period.

you cant return your PS3

you can get stuck with a PS3 that you don't want because you're not inclined to agree with Sony's EULA terms, if you want. That's you. But it ain't me. I'm taking that PS3 back to where I bought it and you can bet, sure as God made lil' green apples, that I ain't getting stuck with it. I do the sticking. Never the other way around.

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.
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.

O.K. Let me put on my attorney bifocals and try to look at this from a legal standpoint:

The terms of Sony's PS3 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.

and further state:

9. GENERAL LEGAL

By using or accessing the System Software, you agree to be bound by all current terms of this Agreement. To access a printable, current copy of this Agreement, go to http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ on your personal computer. SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3? system documentation or manual, or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Terms of Service and User Agreement for SCE's online network, the terms of this Agreement shall control the use of or access to, the System Software.

You'll perhaps notice that agreement to the EULA's terms (both as currently presented and any subsequent changes thereto) occurs upon "using or accessing" the software contained in the PS3. I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where use of or access to the software in the PS3 -- and the binding contract that thereby results -- would be difficult to establish. If Sony is the party seeking enforcement of its EULA, then I'd can't imagine how they would have ever concluded that they have a prosecutable cause of action against a defendant if they aren't somehow aware of the defendant's use of or access to the software in the console and, therefore, can't somehow establish as a matter of fact that the console in question was somehow used or accessed. Hackers are the perfect example. If Sony knows enough to file suit against you for breach of the "no reverse engineering, no decompilation, no disassembling, no bypassing, disabliung, or circumvention of any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism" clause, then they would necessarily know that you used or access their software in so doing because use and/or access is a necessarily step toward that breach. You can't very well hack software without accessing it. Under these circumstances, how difficult can proving use and/or access be? If Sony cam make out a prima facie case that you did in fact hack their software, isn't a necessary corollary of that fact the fact that you must have also used accessed their software?

And, of course, create and log on to PSN account and that you used the software then lies beyond all dispute.

Proving that a defendant used or accessed the software in a PS3 isn't a particularly narrow hoop to jump through, I would think.

Its not a matter of if he acessed the software if he violated the terms of use its if/when he was presented with the contract in the first place. Im goint to say this again, because ive only said it 9 times in the couse of these forums and i wanna go for the full dozen.
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
This is the legal term for a contract that you have to agree to before signing,like the contract on a videogame that you have to open the shrinkwrap in order to read rendering it unretournable, it is illegal, it violates fair trade laws in almost every western country and almost every american state, yet so many companies do it that it has become commonplace.

 

[ilion]

Is this the beginning of neuromancer style cyberpunk future? lol

 

[Dastardly]

snip

The problem here is sony offered 3rd party OS's as a feature on their product. Then after people decided to buy their overpriced piece of junk they pull the ol bait and switch on them.

I dunno if this example would work but wouldn't it be like, Dell selling a PC to you and you had the option of loading Linux, Unix, w/e on it, then they released a patch that made it ONLY useable by windows. I mean isn't that kinda what happened here. Sony released a piece of equipment that was being used by Governments and Universities because of its number crunching power and now...its only a game station/bluray player. They could at least offer a refund to the people who they bilked out of their money.

I don't think that is right and why I've never purchased a PS3, or a PSP. I'll stick with my PS2 and keep with Steam on my PC and my Wii/3DS for my gaming needs.

But this is all a separate grievance from what Anonymous is pursuing. If Sony legitimately advertised this product as having a feature, sold it under the clear pretense of having this feature, and then revoked that feature without giving owners any recourse, that's what the fight should be about.

It sounds to me like most people can't really pin down what all the fuss is about, and that's usually a sure sign they don't quite know what they're fighting for--they just know who they're fighting, but not why.

 

[Emergent]

A better question is exactly what people are concerned about when their "private information" is being revealed to Sony? Every single person who uses the Internet is already datamined to hell and back ( by Google, good guys of the Internet, no less ). What? Is Sony going to start suing people on a case by case basis? Is that what you, anonymous, or whoever is saying?

I'm fair certain Sony's attorneys aren't going to start suing people on Sony's behalf on their volition, and if nobody in Sony except the attorneys know information that could be used to form a lawsuit, who is Sony going to sue?

Stop using fearmongering tactics. I am sick of people preying on the uninformed to garner knee jerk reactions instead of fairly presenting facts as is.

I'm not exactly sure which part of "I don't want my personal information turned over to a third interested party when neither I, nor anyone else, has been convicted of a crime" is fearmongering, but I'm sure you can clarify your position. I also noticed you didn't answer my question.

An employee of a corporate person isn't a part of that corporate person. Only the shareholder(s) of the corporate person are part of the corporate person.

http://www.sonypictures.com/corp/employment/faq/index.html#q6 ....so, basically, most of them?

 

[JDKJ]

the court found that a shrink-wrapped EULA resulted in a binding contract being formed when the purchaser retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period.

you cant return your PS3

you can get stuck with a PS3 that you don't want because you're not inclined to agree with Sony's EULA terms, if you want. That's you. But it ain't me. I'm taking that PS3 back to where I bought it and you can bet, sure as God made lil' green apples, that I ain't getting stuck with it. I do the sticking. Never the other way around.

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.
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.

O.K. Let me put on my attorney bifocals and try to look at this from a legal standpoint:

The terms of Sony's PS3 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.

and further state:

9. GENERAL LEGAL

By using or accessing the System Software, you agree to be bound by all current terms of this Agreement. To access a printable, current copy of this Agreement, go to http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-eula/ on your personal computer. SCE, at its sole discretion, may modify the terms of this Agreement at any time, including any terms in the PS3? system documentation or manual, or at http://www.scei.co.jp/ps3-license/index.html. Please check back on this website from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the System Software will signify your acceptance of any changes to this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Terms of Service and User Agreement for SCE's online network, the terms of this Agreement shall control the use of or access to, the System Software.

You'll perhaps notice that agreement to the EULA's terms (both as currently presented and any subsequent changes thereto) occurs upon "using or accessing" the software contained in the PS3. I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where use of or access to the software in the PS3 -- and the binding contract that thereby results -- would be difficult to establish. If Sony is the party seeking enforcement of its EULA, then I'd can't imagine how they would have ever concluded that they have a prosecutable cause of action against a defendant if they aren't somehow aware of the defendant's use of or access to the software in the console and, therefore, can't somehow establish as a matter of fact that the console in question was somehow used or accessed. Hackers are the perfect example. If Sony knows enough to file suit against you for breach of the "no reverse engineering, no decompilation, no disassembling, no bypassing, disabliung, or circumvention of any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism" clause, then they would necessarily know that you used or access their software in so doing because use and/or access is a necessarily step toward that breach. You can't very well hack software without accessing it. Under these circumstances, how difficult can proving use and/or access be? If Sony cam make out a prima facie case that you did in fact hack their software, isn't a necessary corollary of that fact the fact that you must have also used accessed their software?

And, of course, create and log on to PSN account and that you used the software then lies beyond all dispute.

Proving that a defendant used or accessed the software in a PS3 isn't a particularly narrow hoop to jump through, I would think.

Its not a matter of if he acessed the software if he violated the terms of use its if/when he was presented with the contract in the first place. Im goint to say this again, because ive only said it 9 times in the couse of these forums and i wanna go for the full dozen.
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
SHRINKWRAP CONTRACT
This is the legal term for a contract that you have to agree to before signing,like the contract on a videogame that you have to open the shrinkwrap in order to read rendering it unretournable, it is illegal, it violates fair trade laws in almost every western country and almost every american state, yet so many companies do it that it has become commonplace.

Please don't insult my intelligence. I know what a shrink-wrap EULA is. And if you really want to impress me, find the place among Best Buy's refund policy pasted below where it says I can't return my PS3 for refund merely because I've opened the box it which it was contained (but for the rare exception of a BBFB purchase - and ain't too many businesses in the market for a PS3, I'd imagine):

Best Buy Store Exchange & Return Policy

To exchange or return an item purchased in one of our stores, bring the item to any Best Buy store. Please follow these guidelines:
Exchange and Return Period

Exchange or return your item anytime from the original purchase date within the timeframe below:

* 14 days for computers, monitors, projectors, camcorders, digital cameras, iPads, tablets and radar detectors
* 30 days for all other products
* 45 days for all products for Reward Zone Program Premier Silver members*


*If you are returning a mobile phone or device with a plan, Best Buy is not responsible for carrier charges incurred after the carrier's cancellation period. Please refer to the terms and conditions of your plan to verify the carrier conditions.
Non-Returnable Items

Some items cannot be returned, including:

* Labor, delivery and/or installation services
* Pre-paid cards such as music, photo, video or phone cards
* Digital content (e.g. music downloads from Napster)
* Pitch In? Card contributions
* Consumable items such as food, drink and batteries
* Items that are damaged or abused
* Items that are missing accessories, such as remote controls, cords and cables
* Etched or otherwise personalized items
* Opened computer software, movies, music and video games can be exchanged for the identical item but cannot be returned for a refund

Original Receipt and Valid Photo ID

Bring the original receipt as well as your valid photo ID for all exchanges, returns, price matches and warranty repair services. Best Buy accepts the following forms of photo identification:

* U.S., Canadian or Mexican driver's license
* U.S. state ID
* Canadian province ID
* U.S. military ID
* Passport

We electronically secure your information solely for the purpose of returns management, in accordance with state and federal laws regarding consumer privacy.
Restocking Fee

There is a 25% restocking fee for special order products.
Promotional Items and Bundles

As a benefit to our customers, Best Buy occasionally offers promotional items and savings with a purchase or enhanced savings on a bundle of items when they are purchased together.

* When a promotional item is returned, the value of the promotional item is deducted from the refund amount. For instance, if you purchase a TV and get a $100 gift card or 50% off of a DVD player, the $100 value of the gift card or the total value of the DVD player would be subtracted from the refund.
* When an item included as part of a promotional bundle is returned, the bundled discount is void and the value of the bundled discount will be applied to the refund. This occasionally results in additional funds being owed to Best Buy. For instance, if your receive $200 in savings when you purchase a laptop and printer together and you return either item, the $200 amount will be subtracted from your refund.

Returning Mobile Phones with Plans

When returning a mobile phone or device with a plan, you are responsible for canceling service with the carrier. When you make the return, simply tell the Best Buy sales associate that you also want to cancel your service.

Failure to discontinue service may result in additional carrier charges. All carrier charges incurred are the full responsibility of the customer.

If you have questions about mobile phone or device returns, please call Best Buy Mobile at 1-877-702-2211 (6:00am-midnight CT).
Refund Method

Your refund will generally be in the same form as the original payment. However, when the item was purchased with cash or with a debit card without a major credit card logo for more than $500, or with a check for more than $250 the refund will be in the form of a check mailed to you within 10 business days. If the item was purchased using debit and the debit card has a major credit card logo, refunds under $250 will be issued as cash; refunds over $250 will be credited back to the card.
Mail-In Rebates

When a product that was purchased when a mail-in rebate was available on the item, the amount of the rebate may be deducted from the refund amount.
Country of Origin

The item must be exchanged or returned in the country in which it was originally purchased.
To Protect Your Personal Data

Please remove all personal data (e.g. computer or wireless phone data) from any exchanged or returned products. Best Buy is not responsible for any personal data left on or in an exchanged or returned product.
Best Buy Discretion

Best Buy reserves the right to deny any return.

Some tests may use a different set of policies. When a different policy is in effect, you will be informed of those differences prior to purchase.
To Return Special Delivery Items, Performance Service Plans, or Black Tie Protection

To exchange or return items that were delivered, such as major appliances, TVs, furniture and included accessories, please call 1-888-BESTBUY (1-888-237-8289).

To return or cancel your Best Buy Performance Service Plan or Black Tie Protection plan, please call 1-888-BESTBUY (1-888-237-8289).
For purchases made at BestBuy.com or Best Buy for Business, please reference the details below.

Policies of BestBuy.com may vary from our in-store policies. Please see the BestBuy.com Return Policy.
Best Buy for Business

Unfortunately, exchanges and returns of BBFB product purchased through our in-store kiosk, catalog, or via www.BestBuyForBusiness.com cannot be processed at stores at this time. A return authorization can be obtained by calling 1-800-373-3050. Open items returns are not accepted. For full details, see the in-store kiosk, catalog, or www.BestBuyForBusiness.com.

 

[-Ulven-]

Anon is turning every organasation that we gamers need on our side to help gaming forward against us.

 

[Scout Tactical]

DDoS is the weakest of the tools in Anonymous's arsenal. Like the press release said: It's just symbolic.

It won't be interesting until they start picking at security flaws in the Sony system.

 

[Sandytimeman]

snip

The problem here is sony offered 3rd party OS's as a feature on their product. Then after people decided to buy their overpriced piece of junk they pull the ol bait and switch on them.

I dunno if this example would work but wouldn't it be like, Dell selling a PC to you and you had the option of loading Linux, Unix, w/e on it, then they released a patch that made it ONLY useable by windows. I mean isn't that kinda what happened here. Sony released a piece of equipment that was being used by Governments and Universities because of its number crunching power and now...its only a game station/bluray player. They could at least offer a refund to the people who they bilked out of their money.

I don't think that is right and why I've never purchased a PS3, or a PSP. I'll stick with my PS2 and keep with Steam on my PC and my Wii/3DS for my gaming needs.

But this is all a separate grievance from what Anonymous is pursuing. If Sony legitimately advertised this product as having a feature, sold it under the clear pretense of having this feature, and then revoked that feature without giving owners any recourse, that's what the fight should be about.

It sounds to me like most people can't really pin down what all the fuss is about, and that's usually a sure sign they don't quite know what they're fighting for--they just know who they're fighting, but not why.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what GeoHot do was to unlock the PS3 so people could once again install what they wished on their PS3's? If PS3 had left the feature I was talking about IN their would be no ANON attack or GEOHOT hacking.

 

[Dastardly]

The news story said the Sony attacks should be symbolic, but according to this, they just shut down the site. That doesn't seem like it's super symbolic.

Anonymous 1: Okay guys, what can we do that will make Sony understand what it's doing?

Anonymous 2: We could DDoS them.

1: How is that symbolic?

2: I don't know, but all we know how to do is shut down sites!

1: I suppose your right. Alright, we DDoS them at dawn.

2: Huzzah!

1: God I love protecting freedom by restricting website access.

Irony tastes ironic.

 

[eels05]

Sorry I dont see how a company big or small taking legal action to protect the basic function of their products as an 'abuse' of anyones rights.
I personally dont see the whole practice of cracking open an ipod,laptop,PS3 or any other piece of equipment to add crap to it and make it do things it wasn't designed to do by its makers as something worth having legal action taken against me for.

I'll try to restate my point, then. Under current U.S. copyright law, if you purchase an electronic device, you are allowed to modify the hardware for pretty much any purpose you wish, but modifying the software for similar purposes is not. What Sony has done is try to circumvent that consumer right (and it is a right, as stated in the DMCA and upheld by the recent apple jailbrake ruling) by designing software that specifically locks out hardware, and then claimed that removing that software for the purpose of exercising one's right to modify the hardware is crime. There's the rub. The law has been settled on this issue, and Sony is trying to ignore it.

As to having your personal credit card numbers, address, phone, and other details turned over to Sony's lawyers simply because someone ELSE has been CHARGED with a crime... it's unconscionable, the judge that allowed them access to that information is most likely unconstitutionally in violation of the Federal Wiretapping Act of 1968 and the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (the information being taken from youtube and paypay is not being used to maintain the rights and property of YOUTUBE and PAYPAY, but of SONY, which is a use of the electronic monitoring by youtube and paypay that is NOT stipulated as legal according to those two acts).

Does that maybe help explain why there is more going on here than what appears on the surface?

Yeah sure.I understand what your getting at.
But as far as Anoymonous making a point about adhearing to the letter of the law by breaking it themselves?
Sorry I cant support that kind of hipocracy.
At the end of the day I guess I'm more concerned about voiding the warranty on expensive products by cracking them open and putting in shit the designer didn't want in there.