Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
If it is, as you assert, "in fact a defence [sic]," it doesn't appear to me to be a very good "defense" in any of the following jurisdictions given the relevant case law and the principle of stare decisis:BRex21 said:
See ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (upholding the validity and enforceability of a shrink-wrapped EULA).
See Hill v. Gateway2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that contract terms inside a box of software were binding on consumer who subsequently used it).
See Mudd-Lyman Sales and Serv. Corp v. UPS, Inc., 236 F.Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ruling that plaintiff accepted terms of license by breaking shrink-wrap seal and by its on-screen acceptance of terms of software license agreement).
See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Supreme Court of Washington, 2000) (holding that the licensing agreement set forth in the software packaging and instruction manuals was part of a valid contract).
See Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n v. Lexmark Int?l, Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the validity of a shrink-wrapped license because the box provided clear notice of the terms and the box had been opened) (note also that the Arizona Cartridge decision is that of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore has strong precedential effect on the decisions of the Northern District of California where SCEA v. Hotz currently resides).
See Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct. App. Div. [Aug.] 1998) (holding that a shrink-wrapped contract was formed when the plaintiffs retained the software for longer than the 30 day "approve or return" period).
See Rogers v. Dell Computer Corp., 2005 WL 1519233 (Okla. June 28, 2005) (holding that a contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Levy v. Gateway 2000, 1997 WL 823611 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) (holding that consumer assented to EULA by keeping the product).
See I-Systems, Inc. v. Softwares, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6001 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004) (denying summary judgment in part by upholding I-Systems? click-through and shrink-wrap licenses).
See Net2Phone, Inc. v. State ex rel Consumer Cause, Inc., 109Cal. App. 4th 583 (Cal. App. June 9, 2003) (implicitly upholding Net2Phone's forum selection clause, even though the user agreement was formed only through a hyper-linked contract with the language "by using the site or materials, you agree . . . .").
See Lively v IJAM, Inc., 2005 OK Civ. App. 29 (2005) (holding that an enforceable contract was formed when a computer was ordered by telephone and terms contained in box were disregarded).
See Rinaldi v. Iomega, 1999 WL 1442014 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999) (enforcing a disclaimer of warranties contained inside product packaging when there was a refund opportunity).
See Westendorf v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 2000 WL 307369 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 16, 2000) (enforcing licensing agreement contained in the packaging even though the computer was paid for by someone else).
See Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 09-35969. DC No. 2:07-cv-01189-RAJ (2010) (concluding that a shrink-wrapped EULA created a license rather than a sale of the underlying software with the consequence that copyright law's first-sale doctrine did not apply) (note also that the Vernor decision is that of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and therefore has strong precedential effect on the decisions of the Northern District of California where SCEA v. Hotz currently resides).
And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
*kicks the dead horse one last time for good measure and walks away*
P.S.: And clicking on a click-through button does not, as you mistakenly claim, constitute a "signature." A signature "includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing." U.C.C. Art. 1, Sec. 1-201. A "writing" "includes printing, typewriting or any other intentional reduction to tangible form." Id. I'm hopeful that you, exercising your own interpretive skills, can see where, under these twin definitions, clicking on a click-through button on a computer monitor does not, as you claim, constitute a "signature" but, if you need me to sprinkle you a bread-crumb trail, just lemme know and I'll be more than willing to oblige. I hate to see anyone fall victim to their own ignorance.
Technically, I included it among "[a]nd on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum." I figured that more than a dozen cases was enough to prove the point. But thanks for adding one more. Although, with some people, if doesn't matter if God descends from the Heavens and tells them, "Shut up and quit arguing! You're as off base as off base can be!" They'll still insist that their foot was on the base before the first baseman caught the ball.Gindil said:You forgot the newest one:JDKJ said:
Link [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/03/court_rules_tha.htm]
: P
So long as that guy was Derek Jeter running, it's all good.JDKJ said:Although, with some people, if doesn't matter if God descends from the Heavens and tells them, "Shut up and quit arguing! You're as off base as off base can be!" They'll still insist that their foot was on the base before the first baseman caught the ball.Gindil said:You forgot the newest one:JDKJ said:
Link [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/03/court_rules_tha.htm]
: P
True dat. But even Derek Jeter has never tried to steal first base. Although he has successfully faked getting hit by a pitch in order to get a walk.Gindil said:So long as that guy was Derek Jeter running, it's all good.JDKJ said:Although, with some people, if doesn't matter if God descends from the Heavens and tells them, "Shut up and quit arguing! You're as off base as off base can be!" They'll still insist that their foot was on the base before the first baseman caught the ball.Gindil said:You forgot the newest one:JDKJ said:
Link [http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/03/court_rules_tha.htm]
: P
unfortunately guy, it is but one of the many foul ways of the world, unless 'we the people' stand up together and do something about it. If that were to happen then maybe people would become more than just the pawns in the battles between the titans and gods of the corporate/governmental world.Mrhappyface 2 said:
Actually, that's a fitting analogy. Never once did a human 'win' against a greek myth god; they either survived by appeasing a god or horribly lost and suffered against a god's wrath. How...interesting is it that the same is true for the current state of the modern world.
No I don't think it will change their mind, but it will punish them for doing evil things. Plus it will let them know that people oppose their actions. Oh and it will cost them some money.JDKJ said:
So in the end they get stung both in their wallets, and in their companies goodwill. That's much better than doing nothing and just bending over and letting them have their way without a fight.
Isn't the Hero Of Gamers and Modders Worldwide, George Hotz, the one who claims to be fighting the good fight and who predicts that he will whup Sony's ass in court? Why get your panties in a bunch and work up a sweat? Just sit back with some popcorn and watch the Hero whup ass.godofallu said:
I don't really know him that well, its not about the person it's about the belief that we own what we pay for and can do whatever we want with it. Frankly 1 person with very limited funding has a small chance of holding his own at court against such a large company.JDKJ said:
The point is to do something, and express your opinion. I'm going to guess that you think people shouldn't be allowed to tamper with things they pay for?
No need to guess. I'll be the first one to tell you -- as I've told 1,000,000 people here already -- that you don't own the software in a console and you can't do with it whatever you want. That software is only licensed to you for use and the licensor, be it Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft, can and does impose a host of restrictions on what you can and can't do with that software. Think about what you're saying: if it was your software and you could indeed do with it whatever you want, then you would be able -- assuming you had the technical know-how -- to copy that software, go to any decent electronics part store, buy the hardware that makes up a console, stick the hardware and software together in a plastic housing, and sell the console that you've made. Are you seriously going to tell me that doing so is something you can legally do because you own the console and can do with it whatever you want? And if that sounds entirely ridiculous to you -- as it should -- then maybe now you'll understand why all the Big Three console makers license their software instead of selling it to you outright -- as does most everyone else in the software business. If they sold you the software outright for you to own, then that's precisely what you could do with it and, obviously, they'd quickly be out of business.godofallu said:
And don't worry about Georgie Boy and his ability to fund his legal crusade against Sony. He's been soliciting donations for his Legal Defense Fund and, according to him, he's got more than enough money to pay his attorneys to take on Sony.
The situation you described clearly violates fair use policy, whereas tinkering with something you own for personal use does not. There are many things you can own but not sell. For example I can burn a DvD I own or copy it to my pc legally, but if I were to try selling the burned copies or torrenting the pc version I would be violating fair use.JDKJ said:
Actually, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that it is illegal to circumvent the CSS (Content Scramble System) copy-protection mechanism employed by most commercial DVDs and to make copies thereof. In fact, a San Francisco federal court has ruled that 321 Studios' line of DVD-copying products, including DVD X Copy, DVD X Copy Xpress, and DVD Copy Plus that gave consumers the power to make backup copies of DVDs with copy protection, were illegal because they circumvented anti-piracy technology in violation of the DMCA, even though the consumers may be copying DVDs solely for personal use.godofallu said:
The exact same thing happened to RealNetworks and its RealDVD software that allowed consumers to make a copy of a DVD they own, even when doing so for purely personal reasons. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that RealDVD violated the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. And RealNetworks was thereby forced to yank their RealDVD software from the market.
And that is precisely one of the claims that Sony has raised against Georgie Boy and his PS3 hack: violation of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.
Well that's an interesting update. Is it just illegal to bypass the protection, or is burning an unprotected DvD a crime as well?JDKJ said:
Needless to say I disagree with that law, and think anyone who enforces it should be harmed. Or DDos'd if you would prefer a lighter punishment.
So basically, the worthless cretins that make up Anonymous still don't have a life?
Is it really necessary for The Escapist to report nearly everytime Anonymous makes one of its petty attacks on a particular site? We get it now. They're predictable. Something Anonymous perceives as "bad" happens, they launch an attack and somehow believe they're some kind of revolutionary heroes fighting for some noble cause. Enough of them already!
I've probably said it before in another Anonymous related thread, but nothing would satisfy me more than for every one of their pasty white asses to be slapped with a hefty fine or thrown into jail. Or preferably both.
Is it really necessary for The Escapist to report nearly everytime Anonymous makes one of its petty attacks on a particular site? We get it now. They're predictable. Something Anonymous perceives as "bad" happens, they launch an attack and somehow believe they're some kind of revolutionary heroes fighting for some noble cause. Enough of them already!
I've probably said it before in another Anonymous related thread, but nothing would satisfy me more than for every one of their pasty white asses to be slapped with a hefty fine or thrown into jail. Or preferably both.
If the DVD has no built in anti-copy mechanism, such as CSS, then, no, copying it won't put you on the DMCA's hook. But there are few commercially available DVDs that don't have some sort of anti-copy mechanism built in to them. That's how the movie studios and distributors protect themselves from pirates -- or, at least, try to do so. Emphasis on "try." Just like Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo build into their consoles some sort of access control mechanism that, in theory, makes it impossible to play pirated games. That would be the same access control mechanism that Georgie Boy and his PS3 hack helps, at least in part, to circumvent. And before you latch on to "in part," the DMCA states that distributing even a part of a technology that would allow circumvention of an access control mechanism puts you on its hook. And that's also why another of the many claims that Sony has raised against him is that of "contributory infrigement" (i.e., facilitating others to infringe on copyrighted material even though the defendant may not have themselves directly infringed on anyone's copyright).godofallu said:
So now that you've been made aware that it is illegal under the DMCA to make copies of your copy-protected DVDs, even if you're only doing so for personal use, lemme ask you this: are you going to discontinue the practice? Don't even bother answering. I'm generally pretty good at predicting the future. It's just those fucking Lotto numbers I can't ever seem to get right. : P