Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I agree with you there.Fox242 said:
The hackers and pirates lost ANY right in this argument when they started targeting gamers who had nothing to do with them.
And do you know their excuse? "HUR DUR YOU BOUGHT SONY CRAP YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR STUFF RUINED".
I refuse to support Geohotz and his criminal activities.
I think Anonymous is right in that a person should be allowed to mod something, within reason. Sony shouldn't threaten to sue everyone who mods their console, just those who do it in such a way that it causes trouble.
Basically punish the pirates, not eveyone who just wants to have fun.
Basically punish the pirates, not eveyone who just wants to have fun.
You asked for a time where Sony "ripped out a part of the console that the person bought" and that's pretty much precisely what those patches did. Sure, it was a software capability that they patched out, but it's still removing functionality. Sure, Other OS my not be something you care about, but that doesn't make removing the ability to use it any less of an example.voorhees123 said:
And why remove non-licensed USB peripherals? That's just Sony forcing you to buy their overpriced headsets and whatnot instead of that one for $5 on sale at radio shack that they won't see a penny of. Peripherals are just another way for a company to make money. By disabling most non-licensed USB peripherals, Sony is forcing people to buy their over priced crap instead of some other company's.
tl;dr - Just because they didn't physically remove something doesn't mean nothing was taken.
OT: I agree with whoever said Anonymous is just supporting Sony's claim that hackers are no good. I personally believe that when you buy a console, you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to the damn thing. Granted, the company can then say that you voided your warranty and ban you from online play, but that's it. They shouldn't be able to confiscate your console because you did something to it they didn't like.
Are we even sure that the same Anon is involved here, or someone pretending to be, because this seems to be immature to what all the other things that Anon did, and stood for?Celtic_Kerr said:
That is some remarkably specific wording you used. Let's get more general; does hacking systems lead to piracy?Keava said:
1. Guy releases method of hack onto internet.
2. Pirates and cheats suddenly start appearing.
Looks like!
Funny thing; he released his hack, and then pirates appeared. Therefore, your claim is false.
Funny thing; companies in the US are legally required to put in airbags. None is legally required to put Linux on a system. Could you please use a different analogy?
Straw man. Releasing the hack led to piracy and cheating, no matter much you try to ignore it.
And now you're insulting anyone who disagrees with you. That's not someone who's objective.
Hotz modified the software, not the hardware. The hardware is owned by users. The software is licensed from Sony.
Say, what's your real name, address, and social security number?
You keep stating conclusions as premises.
You talk about freedom of information. Sony is under no more obligation to release the root key to the public than you are your real name, address, and social security number I asked for a few lines ago. If you force "freedom of information" on someone, then by definition, it's not freedom.
The one they're going to court to determine? Even if someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, they still have to be tried.
First off I feel obligated to remind you that correlation is not causation. Just because the hackers "suddenly appeared" when Hotz released this information does not mean they appeared because of his releasing the information. It does lend some credence to that theory, but it is by no means proof.JonnWood said:
Also concrete evidence that the hackers appearance did even correspond with his release would be nice rather than just stating it as fact that they appeared precisely in the time frame that Hotz released the information.
As for the insulting of people who disagree with him, you are correct that is rather rude and does nothing to strengthen his argument.
Stating conclusions first than following with supporting evidence is a common rhetorical technique.
Lastly, the airbags was not necessarily the best component to use for that description, but suppose the car was marketed as being capable of aquatic transportation as well. Then later after purchase the company arrives and pulls of the components necessary to the aquatic capabilities. Your purchase of the car may have been directly due to this capability, but now it no longer functions and you're out all the money you spent on it. Wouldn't you then try to repair the aquatic functionality in order to get full use of the product you purchased?
Aside from that I have no issue with your arguments, though I feel the comparison between individual privacy and the information regarding modification of a product isn't quite fair, I can't begin to articulate my feelings on that one so I'll let it slide.
EDIT: Fixed the quote.
Problem with anon is that we can be talking of 2 completely different beings under the same alias.le picklez said:
And I don't keep a book on what they are own about to who. I just don't care, but all I know that In my opinion, they have crossed the line of "defending anonymity and freedom of speech on the Internet" that they set long ago.
Anonymous is just stupid. They want to be taken seriously but we're talking about the kinds of people who spend their time trying to come up with new memes. I've never taken Anon. seriously because everything they do that has some sort of real world effect always comes off as childish and reactionary.
Focusing on the things upon which we still do not agree:
However, I think we agree that the latter is also an important issue. My problem is that the product is fully paid for. I think you can definitely set terms and conditions for someone to use something that you own, but once they own it you just don't have a say. And I don't think we rent our consoles. I think we buy them and own them. I'm not really familiar with the EULA, but if it says that you absolutely cannot do things to the product, then you don't really own it. And regarding that point I DEFINITELY do not think that Sony (or anyone else for that matter) gets to tell you that you don't own something only after you've already bought it. Frankly, I don't think someone has a right to tell you that you don't own something after you've paid for it in full.
Now, granted you can't rip off their technology by taking apart the console and retro-engineering one of your own and then selling it. But that's a copyright or patent law, which is something entirely different. The design of the machine itself is an intellectual property that you do not purchase when you purchase the machine itself. But I think that you do own the physical equipment itself once you've bought it.
I think the facts that you
1) have paid one lump sum and are given the piece of equipment without ever paying the company again,
and
2) can sell your console to someone else without notifying the person you've bought it from
are both indications that you are, in fact, the full legal owner of that piece of equipment. And frankly, if the law doesn't acknowledge this, then it needs to be changed.
Once again, I'm going to disagree with you in that I think that this is still a problem even though people put up with it. Sure, people might not rebel against a tyrant, but that might be because they don't want to sacrifice their lives, not because they're happy with the tyrant. Obviously people putting up with the EULA because they really want to play the next Metal Gear Solid or Killzone is not as extreme as the above example, but it still follows the same principle.
Maybe people shouldn't have to constantly undergo boycotts in order to not be treated badly. Maybe it's alright if someone steps up to speak for them. You say that Anonymous is falsely representing the community? Well then, let's just apply your principle: if people dislike Anon for doing this, let them speak up. Sure, Anonymous doesn't have to answer directly to the people, but they'll look really bad if they don't and people will stop supporting them, which with a group like Anon, might be fatal [or it might make them stronger, idk they're fricken Anonymous].
I guess you could make an argument that consumers deserve to have their rights taken away due to their own laziness. You could also make an argument for Social Darwinism along similar lines. I don't think any moral system is objectively right or wrong, but I do think that these systems have to be internally consistent, so you should realize the greater implications of your arguments.
Furthermore, we have a conservative supreme court, and the supreme court has virtually no oversight. I'd say that they're actually more powerful than the President. They could rule that consumers have no rights over the products that they buy. I don't think that will happen but it still worries me.
No, no rights are absolute. For example let's take what is widely agreed upon as the most fundamental right, the right to live. I always have the right to live... except when I am trying to kill someone else. When I do this I void my right to live because that person has the right to kill me in self defense. Thus no rights are absolute. Unless you submit that pacifism is the only coherent position and that we never have a right to defend ourselves when it involves taking the life of the aggressor.Dastardly said:
That isn't an issue of whether ownership is a right. It's an issue of whether you have ownership in a particular given scenario. The two are conceptually and philosophically different.Dastardly said:
However, I think we agree that the latter is also an important issue. My problem is that the product is fully paid for. I think you can definitely set terms and conditions for someone to use something that you own, but once they own it you just don't have a say. And I don't think we rent our consoles. I think we buy them and own them. I'm not really familiar with the EULA, but if it says that you absolutely cannot do things to the product, then you don't really own it. And regarding that point I DEFINITELY do not think that Sony (or anyone else for that matter) gets to tell you that you don't own something only after you've already bought it. Frankly, I don't think someone has a right to tell you that you don't own something after you've paid for it in full.
Now, granted you can't rip off their technology by taking apart the console and retro-engineering one of your own and then selling it. But that's a copyright or patent law, which is something entirely different. The design of the machine itself is an intellectual property that you do not purchase when you purchase the machine itself. But I think that you do own the physical equipment itself once you've bought it.
I think the facts that you
1) have paid one lump sum and are given the piece of equipment without ever paying the company again,
and
2) can sell your console to someone else without notifying the person you've bought it from
are both indications that you are, in fact, the full legal owner of that piece of equipment. And frankly, if the law doesn't acknowledge this, then it needs to be changed.
Once again, I'm going to disagree with you in that I think that this is still a problem even though people put up with it. Sure, people might not rebel against a tyrant, but that might be because they don't want to sacrifice their lives, not because they're happy with the tyrant. Obviously people putting up with the EULA because they really want to play the next Metal Gear Solid or Killzone is not as extreme as the above example, but it still follows the same principle.
Maybe people shouldn't have to constantly undergo boycotts in order to not be treated badly. Maybe it's alright if someone steps up to speak for them. You say that Anonymous is falsely representing the community? Well then, let's just apply your principle: if people dislike Anon for doing this, let them speak up. Sure, Anonymous doesn't have to answer directly to the people, but they'll look really bad if they don't and people will stop supporting them, which with a group like Anon, might be fatal [or it might make them stronger, idk they're fricken Anonymous].
Yes, but I don't conflate the law with morality. The two are separate, albeit related. The law is meant to protect me, and when it starts to undermine this original purpose, then it needs to be subverted.Dastardly said:
I'm not sugar coating GH's side. I think he's kind of a douche and is probably guilty of breaking some laws. However, I also think that Sony is drastically more powerful than him, and so they're the bully. Granted it's not pure Good vs. Evil, but nothing is. Frankly it's more like Douche vs. Evil. I'm rooting for Douche because Evil has it in for me. I'm just looking at it from my perspective, which is that I don't want to have my control over what I own taken away from me.Dastardly said:
I didn't say that the lawyers were evil. (Though I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most corporate lawyers are probably more than willing to subvert justice in order to improve their financial situation.) Frankly, I don't even really believe in an objective or absolute good or evil. When I use the term 'evil', I'm really just being facetious. I don't like Sony because I know they'll do anything to make a buck and that includes trampling on my rights. Frankly I could care less about modding my PS3. HELL, I DON'T EVEN HAVE A PS3! I just don't want a nasty legal precedent being set that can lead to further legal precedents that ever decrease the amount of say I have over what I can do with the things I buy.Dastardly said:
I'm not sure if people will. I'm not sure if the majority care or are even aware of the fact. Plus, Microsoft and Nintendo can easily have an unspoken trust with Sony. They know that the EULA is in their best interest, and might not break or give the consumer the option. Frankly, I don't think enough gamers care enough to let the free market decide this.Dastardly said:
I guess you could make an argument that consumers deserve to have their rights taken away due to their own laziness. You could also make an argument for Social Darwinism along similar lines. I don't think any moral system is objectively right or wrong, but I do think that these systems have to be internally consistent, so you should realize the greater implications of your arguments.
No, no, no. Did you read what I said about legal precedents? The law is flexible, and individual cases can change it DRASTICALLY. The problem is that the law may not be fully specified on this topic, in which case it is no longer a simple issue of carrying out the law, but becomes a matter of interpreting it. Haven't you ever heard of Roe v. Wade? You know, the whole abortion thing? That was a case that went to the supreme court and now drastically affects our laws.Dastardly said:
Furthermore, we have a conservative supreme court, and the supreme court has virtually no oversight. I'd say that they're actually more powerful than the President. They could rule that consumers have no rights over the products that they buy. I don't think that will happen but it still worries me.
It is possible for both information to be free and the right of natural persons to a reasonable of comfortable degree of privacy be upheld. This obviously does not apply to people who waive such rights of their own volition: those who give their information away to third parties, or willingly and purposely place their lives in the public sphere (politicians, celebrities, etc).voorhees123 said:
That isn't what happened. Sony advertised a feature (or call it functionality) of a product, then removed it remotely in an abusive update at a later time. Now it's suing customers who continue to use the feature in an actual court of law (oh, and they've essentially declared they have the rights to the entire fucking internet in order to gather information to build a case), rather than simply dismiss them from their online services and voiding the warranty.voorhees123 said:
This isn't rocket science. It's absolutely insane, but it isn't a complicated story to follow.
EDIT: @Dastardly: Well said.
Excuse me for banging my head on my desk for a moment. Somehow I doubt Anonymous is really helping anyone by doing this.
This is just juvenile on Anonymous' part,I mean instead of showing Sony that they might have an unjust case they decide to misrepresent the entire modding and hacking comunity. I can see the good arguments made by both sides but I think a friendlier solution is possible. Just do what Valve does and recruit them in to your team,Sony ,maybe they could help make security stronger or they could even create a program that would run homebrew applications without letting pirates run their applications. Then again this will probably not end well for either side and in the end we the consumers are going to have to pay the price.