Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
JDKJ said:
If Hotz did it to allow Linux, do you really believe he thought when he was posting it to the internet for all to share that the people most interested in having it would be people who wanted to run Linux? No, he didn't. He knew full well that 99% of the people who downloaded it were doing so in order to play pirated games. He knows as well as I do that the number of people who want to run Linux on a PS3 can fit in a Mini Cooper.
Im wondering, do you think that Geohot's mod is the first way to play pirated games on your PS3? Piracy was an issue on the PS3 before Geohot came along, and as far as i know, sony has yet to actually disprove the claim that you can't play pirated games on Geohot's system without further tampering.
Sony also has a history of filing costly legal battles they have short odds on winning simply to cause financial damage to people they dont like.

Edit: also, since you didnt respond to my last post, im claiming victory. as i have seen you do twice in this thread
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
Simple enough: You weren't tackling a point I made, you just randomly quoted something out of context and tried to show how it was wrong. Since you weren't actually challenging any point I ever actually argued, the term "not even wrong" comes to mind when I think of your last few posts.

EDIT: edited for clarity.
Here's what I said:

The Court that granted the subpoenas in the first place is unlikely to be the same Court chomping at the bit to reverse itself.

Here's what you said in response:

If they hadn't already modified and reversed many decisions in this case, specifically because the Honorable Judge does not understand the concepts involved (she has already apologized once for requesting GeoHot "retrieve the code" and it being explained to her by Kellar - geo's lawyer- that you can't "retrieve" the internet), you might have a leg to stand on.

Is there no connection between what I said and your response? I reads to me then and now as if it is a refutation of some sort base on the all the "blah, blah, blah" that precedes "you might have a leg to stand on" (which implies that I don't have a leg to stand on with respect to my original point).

So I further responded:

I assumed [mistakenly you claim] the point you were making is that the Court would be inclined to grant a Motion to Quash because it already has a long track record of reversing itself. But the exact opposite would strike me as being the case: because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.

Is there no connection between your reply and my response thereto? If not, please connect the dots for me.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
BRex21 said:
JDKJ said:
If Hotz did it to allow Linux, do you really believe he thought when he was posting it to the internet for all to share that the people most interested in having it would be people who wanted to run Linux? No, he didn't. He knew full well that 99% of the people who downloaded it were doing so in order to play pirated games. He knows as well as I do that the number of people who want to run Linux on a PS3 can fit in a Mini Cooper.
Im wondering, do you think that Geohot's mod is the first way to play pirated games on your PS3? Piracy was an issue on the PS3 before Geohot came along, and as far as i know, sony has yet to actually disprove the claim that you can't play pirated games on Geohot's system without further tampering.
Sony also has a history of filing costly legal battles they have short odds on winning simply to cause financial damage to people they dont like.

Edit: also, since you didnt respond to my last post, im claiming victory. as i have seen you do twice in this thread
Sure. You win. Your prize is being mailed to you as we speak.
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
Dodgeboyuk said:
i am still with anon on this one but...

but maybe they could use their talents to produce an operating system that comes on a disk

*That can be installed on the ps3 that will not effect sony's software all ready on the system their os would probally need launching from the applications menu or something like that

*That comes with an uninstaller

*That will not allow for playstation 1,2 and 3 games(inculding legit ones) to be played within the Operating System's enviroment (in other words their OS would have to be shutdown or exited to get back to the console ability to play games)

i reckon that if they could do all that they could even become leicenced by sony for use on the system
and others might even write software that can be used within this alternate OS
Because that would be constructive. And it's so much more fun and less work to be destructive, now, isn't it?

This actually goes for all the armchair haters spewing vitriol at Sony/Ninty/Microsoft/Apple/whatever when they don't do what that one person wants, or when, say, they restrict or remove a service or option that perhaps has economically unfavourably small user base. Those who object don't try finding a legal, useful workaround that everyone (not least themselves) can benefit from. No, they prefer to just sit back and throw rocks. It makes me very sad sometimes. =(

I mean, by all means, dislike what some company is doing - but wouldn't it be better to put that energy into building a positive (and legal!) solution, rather than just hating? Additionally, if people feel that, say, Sony is 'abusing' the legal system to screw over its customers, then why don't the customers actually try using the legal system to communicate with Sony? As opposed to going against the law, that is. It would make it so much harder for Sony to justify, say, further restrictions or removals.

I'm not saying I personally know how any of this could be done...I just feel that there must be a better way to do this than endless sh*t-stirring.
 

Emergent

New member
Oct 26, 2010
234
0
0
Tankichi said:
no professional can help me.
Have you tried?
JDKJ said:
I reads to me then and now as if it is a refutation of some sort base on the all the "blah, blah, blah" that precedes "you might have a leg to stand on" (which implies that I don't have a leg to stand on with respect to my original point).
The details were indeed in the "Blah, blah, blah."
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
This whole thing is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. In the end, when everything clears, the devastated area will see no one winning. Just a barren landscape in which people will start to rebuild, probably on a new system...

On a lighter note, I wonder if any dirt on Sony will be picked up by Anon like they did with HBGary Federal
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
Tankichi said:
no professional can help me.
Have you tried?
JDKJ said:
I reads to me then and now as if it is a refutation of some sort base on the all the "blah, blah, blah" that precedes "you might have a leg to stand on" (which implies that I don't have a leg to stand on with respect to my original point).
The details were indeed in the "Blah, blah, blah."
That's precisely what I thought. So I'll repeat my original response:

Because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.
 

Emergent

New member
Oct 26, 2010
234
0
0
JDKJ said:
I'll repeat my original response:

Because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.
Forgive my poor memory. What were you responding too, again?
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Emergent said:
JDKJ said:
I'll repeat my original response:

Because the Court, as you claim, has already reversed itself on numerous occasions, it has a greater incentive to deny a Motion to Quash and not add to its long track record of self-reversal.
Forgive my poor memory. What were you responding too, again?
You do know, of course, that trying to baffle them with bullshit is the oldest trick in the book, don't you?
 

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
justnotcricket said:
if people feel that, say, Sony is 'abusing' the legal system to screw over its customers, then why don't the customers actually try using the legal system to communicate with Sony? As opposed to going against the law, that is. It would make it so much harder for Sony to justify, say, further restrictions or removals.
I assume you are refering to taking the issues up with fair trade legislation in your specific country of origin? like the handfull of EU countries that have taken large sums of money from Sony for violating fair trade policies? Sony has taken a stance on this, and it is that they dont care, the penalties arent severe enough. Personally i would rather see Sony fined, and sued and fought through legal battles, but this is slow and expensive and outside of the means of the average person. While i think taking down a site with poorly written poetry about buttons, and enabling crank phonecalls is ultimately pointless, i appreceate the sentiment of screwing with someone you dislike.
 

CronoT

New member
May 15, 2010
161
0
0
-Samurai- said:
I hope that one of them screws up and gets caught, and in turn, rats out more of them.

When you mess with the PS3s software, you're not "tinkering with something you own", you're tinkering with something you're leasing. Huge difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lease
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vest

Might want to check your English. If I 'leased' a PS3, I would only have the right to use it for a certain amount of time and/or for a specific purpose. When I 'buy' a PS3 console, I am then vested ownership in that specific console. At that point, I have power and/or mastery over that console, unless and until I decide to vest ownership to another person or entity.

In the instance that Sony in inferring, the ONLY way that I could be pirating their console would be if I were to build a device, or use a pre-made device, such as a computer, and load the entire operating system for the console onto that device, WITHOUT having first purchased a console, and/or distributing said device as my own invention.

Using the 'Means to an end' reasoning for this arguement is patently false. That's why, despite all the violent deaths caused by guns every year, gun and fire arms manufacturers don't get sued out of existence.

Legally, Sony doesn't have a leg to stand on here. But, the court system is no longer about right or wrong. It's about procedure, jurisprudence, and the process of law. Bleem is a perfect example of Sony's modus operandi in this. Bleem released a Boot Disk that you could use to play PlayStation (PSOne) games on your Sega Dreamcast. You had to BUY the Dreamcast AND BUY the PSOne games, so technically, no piracy was taking place. In lawsuit after lawsuit, the makers of Bleem were found not culpable for the charges Sony brought against them. However, Bleem as a company no longer exists, because Sony sued them out of existence, even though Sony was legally in the wrong every time.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Anon can go right on screwing Sony over just like they're trying to screw over every one of us.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
CronoT said:
-Samurai- said:
I hope that one of them screws up and gets caught, and in turn, rats out more of them.

When you mess with the PS3s software, you're not "tinkering with something you own", you're tinkering with something you're leasing. Huge difference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lease
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/own
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vest

Might want to check your English. If I 'leased' a PS3, I would only have the right to use it for a certain amount of time and/or for a specific purpose. When I 'buy' a PS3 console, I am then vested ownership in that specific console. At that point, I have power and/or mastery over that console, unless and until I decide to vest ownership to another person or entity.

In the instance that Sony in inferring, the ONLY way that I could be pirating their console would be if I were to build a device, or use a pre-made device, such as a computer, and load the entire operating system for the console onto that device, WITHOUT having first purchased a console, and/or distributing said device as my own invention.

Using the 'Means to an end' reasoning for this arguement is patently false. That's why, despite all the violent deaths caused by guns every year, gun and fire arms manufacturers don't get sued out of existence.

Legally, Sony doesn't have a leg to stand on here. But, the court system is no longer about right or wrong. It's about procedure, jurisprudence, and the process of law. Bleem is a perfect example of Sony's modus operandi in this. Bleem released a Boot Disk that you could use to play PlayStation (PSOne) games on your Sega Dreamcast. You had to BUY the Dreamcast AND BUY the PSOne games, so technically, no piracy was taking place. In lawsuit after lawsuit, the makers of Bleem were found not culpable for the charges Sony brought against them. However, Bleem as a company no longer exists, because Sony sued them out of existence, even though Sony was legally in the wrong every time.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Anon can go right on screwing Sony over just like they're trying to screw over every one of us.
What does the Bleem case portend for Hotz? His ass ain't gots no real money, no matter how much he passes that Legal Defense Fund hat around. Is he also destined to be sued out of existence? Or, at least, into a homeless shelter? Just wondering what your predictions are.

And I think you might want to add "license" to your list of definitions. That's what's really afoot. A license.
 

thePyro_13

New member
Sep 6, 2008
492
0
0
Cool stuff anonymous. I think what Sony is doing is wrong, and worse, the other console manufacturers are doing the exact same thing. A publisher shouldn't have the right to destroy(read: brick) a physical product I have purchased or take legal action against me because I'm not using it the way they want me to.

I use my gameboy classic as a coaster for my tea mug and my DSi as a music player(thanks to R4), or at least I used too until nintendo patched away my MP3 player.

I hope that Anonymous can actually trigger some change in the console industry with this campaign.
 

Logarithmic Limbo

New member
Mar 13, 2011
55
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
...Appeasement never worked...
Amen. Violence has resolved more issues throughout history than all this lovey-dovey-lets-hold-hand-and-sit-in-a-circle-and-sing-fucking-kumbaya-my-lord bullshit.

All this "turn the other cheek" brainwashing bullshit is aimed to make all of you into passive sheep, ready to roll over to get buttfucked by any passing authority.
 

CronoT

New member
May 15, 2010
161
0
0
JDKJ said:
What does the Bleem case portend for Hotz? His ass ain't gots no real money, no matter how much he passes that Legal Defense Fund hat around. Is he also destined to be sued out of existence? Or, at least, into a homeless shelter? Just wondering what your predictions are.
It shows a precedent that Sony knowingly and willfully abuses the legal system to get the results they want, regardless of the outcome, ie, if they win or lose. If Hotz hadn't been provided with the money to defend himself, Sony would probably have already gotten some judge who knows nothing about video games, game consoles, and what have you, to declare extra-legal rights for Sony even after the point of sale.

I know this has been brought up time and again, but it's shocking indication of what corporations think they can get away with; when the DVD Player was about to come out as a mass market consumer product, George Lucas tried to get a law passed in the US that would require people who bought one to have to pay periodic licensing fees to OWN a DVD Player and/or the DVD's that play on it. Let that sink in, and let me know what you think.
 

CatinHat

New member
Apr 30, 2009
81
0
0
I hate these people... only a matter of time before the big bear wakes up and goes after everyone

also there site is up.

I don't understand, by attacking a service they are not only hurting the company but the users that use that service. So PS users should be pissed.