Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[Roxor]

Questions for Anonymous:

1. What the hell took you so long?

2. Why are you being so soft on Sony?

I think there's some new questions you should be asking...

Namely, Why the hell did they turn into their enemy? [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/anonymous-goes-after-sony-makes-it-personal-very-personal.ars/2]

Whoa. Looks like Anonymous is trying to drive Sony out of business. I bet they could if they put their minds to it, too.

I hate to say this about the makers of my first shooter console but(first console i actively played shooters on ps2)... they deserve it. Behavior over the past few years was appalling. The CEOs could do a lot to save face by shutting up, apologizing for their stupidity over the past few years, and trying to do right for the industry.

Of course, CEOs are not well-known for doing the right thing. Only whatever will make them the most money. If Anonymous decide they really want to take down Sony, there may not be anything which can be done which will be considered the right thing, or even something which will make money.

 

[JDKJ]

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Neither of those things directly effects Ford or their earning potential, so they wouldn't care. This comparison is in no way apt. You're comparing apples and oranges and claiming they're the same thing, they aren't.

I agree with the poster who earlier said gamers always feel so repressed. It seems like every little thing is the worst thing to ever happen to us.

This is like saying that you bought a ticket to one movie, then when that movie is over, you can go to see another one. Because you bought the ticket to be inside the theater, you bought that. So you can stay inside the theater as long as you want and do whatever you want with it. Because hey, you paid money. You own the right to be there.

It's the same logic as people in LoL, who buy RP then say they shouldn't ever be banned because they spent money. It's moronic.

It's more like buying an actual reel of film, and being told you can't sell it because it was only licensed to you for life, not actually sold. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

It's part of the same set of rights. I guess a better example would be the film studio telling you that you couldn't cut up your own reel of film to make 35mm slides, but it's kind of hard to think of someone actually wanting to do that. What Sony is saying here is that you don't own the product that you paid for, it's just a glorified rental. The same logic they use to say hacking is illegal could be used to keep you from selling the system; in fact, I have some older products with an EULA that explicitly says you can't resell the product; it's a stipulation that is just as invalid as what Sony is trying to pull here.

Strange that you would take the position that a licensor cannot validity restrict the resale of a licensed product by way of a EULA when you and I have already discussed the Vernor v. AutoDesk case in another thread and you acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that AutoDesk can legally restrict the resale of its AutoCAD software if that software was licensed as opposed to sold. And the Court, applying its three-part "license or sale" test, ruled that there was in fact a license (even though it was a shrink-wrapped license), not a sale, and therefore a second-hand sale of the program was validly restricted. And the stakes are much higher in the case of AutoCAD than they are in the case of a PS3 given that a high end AutoCAD program with a multi-seat license can cost in excess of $4500 compared to the $300 a PS3 costs. How can you be aware of the Court's decision in Vernor and yet still claim that a EULA's explicit prohibition against reselling the licensed software is invalid? It would seem to me that if Sony did include a clause in its PS3's EULA forbidding the resale of the PS3, that clause would withstand judicial scrutiny and be upheld. At least it would in any federal court within the Ninth Circuit.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I love it how Hackers appear to think that hacking and causing damage to other people's property will somehow win over the public.

This is fucking stupid, regardless of which side you are on.

Agreed. They're fucking idiots, they should at least wait until the lawsuits are over before they start attacking Sony. And anyway, PS Blog is pretty much a forum, all they're doing is pissing off the people who want to use it, it's not really a direct attack at Sony.

 

[gphjr14]

I love it how Hackers appear to think that hacking and causing damage to other people's property will somehow win over the public.

This is fucking stupid, regardless of which side you are on.

Agreed. They're fucking idiots, they should at least wait until the lawsuits are over before they start attacking Sony. And anyway, PS Blog is pretty much a forum, all they're doing is pissing off the people who want to use it, it's not really a direct attack at Sony.

If anything Sony probably benefited from the momentary lack of access to PSN+. I know Netflix would sometimes prorate a subscription if their was a recognized interference on their end but if Sony doesn't they just got out of having to supply downloads, bandwidth for people who paid for it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Neither of those things directly effects Ford or their earning potential, so they wouldn't care. This comparison is in no way apt. You're comparing apples and oranges and claiming they're the same thing, they aren't.

I agree with the poster who earlier said gamers always feel so repressed. It seems like every little thing is the worst thing to ever happen to us.

This is like saying that you bought a ticket to one movie, then when that movie is over, you can go to see another one. Because you bought the ticket to be inside the theater, you bought that. So you can stay inside the theater as long as you want and do whatever you want with it. Because hey, you paid money. You own the right to be there.

It's the same logic as people in LoL, who buy RP then say they shouldn't ever be banned because they spent money. It's moronic.

It's more like buying an actual reel of film, and being told you can't sell it because it was only licensed to you for life, not actually sold. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

It's part of the same set of rights. I guess a better example would be the film studio telling you that you couldn't cut up your own reel of film to make 35mm slides, but it's kind of hard to think of someone actually wanting to do that. What Sony is saying here is that you don't own the product that you paid for, it's just a glorified rental. The same logic they use to say hacking is illegal could be used to keep you from selling the system; in fact, I have some older products with an EULA that explicitly says you can't resell the product; it's a stipulation that is just as invalid as what Sony is trying to pull here.

Strange that you would take the position that a licensor cannot validity restrict the resale of a licensed product by way of a EULA when you and I have already discussed the Vernor v. AutoDesk case in another thread and you acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that AutoDesk can legally restrict the resale of its AutoCAD software if that software was licensed as opposed to sold. And the Court, applying its three-part "license or sale" test, ruled that there was in fact a license (even though it was a shrink-wrapped license), not a sale, and therefore a second-hand sale of the program was validly restricted. And the stakes are much higher in the case of AutoCAD than they are in the case of a PS3 given that a high end AutoCAD program with a multi-seat license can cost in excess of $4500 compared to the $300 a PS3 costs. How can you be aware of the Court's decision in Vernor and yet still claim that a EULA's explicit prohibition against reselling the licensed software is invalid? It would seem to me that if Sony did include a clause in its PS3's EULA forbidding the resale of the PS3, that clause would withstand judicial scrutiny and be upheld. At least it would in any federal court within the Ninth Circuit.

Did you miss the part where the lower court ruled in the exact opposite direction, and it still hasn't hit the supreme court? This is a legal gray area at best.

Edit: And upon re-reading the post you were quoting, the only reason the resale was possible to prevent on that one was because the 9th circuit overturned the ruling of the lower court which said it more closely resembled a sale than a license. The right of first sale applies to, you know, sales. I would expect a lawyer to be at least as careful with properly presenting an issue as an academic; I guess I shouldn't expect that from a profession which exists to prove one side of an issue and that side only.

 

[JDKJ]

I agree in theory. But there's a potential to really screw up other people's gaming experience since that modded product can still intermingle with a greater community. There's a balance here that Sony is likely trying to preserve. The majority of PS3 gamers are just folks who want to plug into the community and have fun interacting (I'm guessing). A modded box can really stink that up.

If some guy modded his car with armor plating and gun turrets, the cops wouldn't let him drive it to work. And if they did, I sure as hell wouldn't want to see him every day on my morning commute. Sony (the police) is trying keep the public roads (their online gaming experience) clear of tanks (modded boxes) to protect the general public (dumb gamers like me who don't mod boxes).

Good of you to bring up a car comparison, because I was just about to do the same: Sony's attitude towards modding is eerily similar to a company like Ford selling you a car with the promise that you may do whatever you wish to its engine/tires/whatever, but later has a huge recall. At this point you are informed that your sweet 500hp engine doesn't really belong in a Ford...what do they make again? Focus? Anyway, they take out your sweet 500hb engine and put the old one back in. But somebody doesn't like that, and scraps the piece o' shite engine that Ford makes, whereupon he gets sued. Granted, his suited up car could be used to illicit activities such as street racing or drug running, but the burden of proof is on Ford to show that their actions of at best questionable legality are valid, and that all "modders" are only doing so to partake in illegal activities. Before I end up confusing anybody but myself, replace every instance of "Ford" with "Sony," and "engine" with "OS."
I'm for Anon on this one. I kinda hope they stick to humiliating Sony, and not punishing their customer base, cuz I wouldn't want my information leaked all over ze net...

Neither of those things directly effects Ford or their earning potential, so they wouldn't care. This comparison is in no way apt. You're comparing apples and oranges and claiming they're the same thing, they aren't.

I agree with the poster who earlier said gamers always feel so repressed. It seems like every little thing is the worst thing to ever happen to us.

This is like saying that you bought a ticket to one movie, then when that movie is over, you can go to see another one. Because you bought the ticket to be inside the theater, you bought that. So you can stay inside the theater as long as you want and do whatever you want with it. Because hey, you paid money. You own the right to be there.

It's the same logic as people in LoL, who buy RP then say they shouldn't ever be banned because they spent money. It's moronic.

It's more like buying an actual reel of film, and being told you can't sell it because it was only licensed to you for life, not actually sold. Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

No it's not. Because...you can sell your PS3. How does that make sense?

It's part of the same set of rights. I guess a better example would be the film studio telling you that you couldn't cut up your own reel of film to make 35mm slides, but it's kind of hard to think of someone actually wanting to do that. What Sony is saying here is that you don't own the product that you paid for, it's just a glorified rental. The same logic they use to say hacking is illegal could be used to keep you from selling the system; in fact, I have some older products with an EULA that explicitly says you can't resell the product; it's a stipulation that is just as invalid as what Sony is trying to pull here.

Strange that you would take the position that a licensor cannot validity restrict the resale of a licensed product by way of a EULA when you and I have already discussed the Vernor v. AutoDesk case in another thread and you acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit has ruled that AutoDesk can legally restrict the resale of its AutoCAD software if that software was licensed as opposed to sold. And the Court, applying its three-part "license or sale" test, ruled that there was in fact a license (even though it was a shrink-wrapped license), not a sale, and therefore a second-hand sale of the program was validly restricted. And the stakes are much higher in the case of AutoCAD than they are in the case of a PS3 given that a high end AutoCAD program with a multi-seat license can cost in excess of $4500 compared to the $300 a PS3 costs. How can you be aware of the Court's decision in Vernor and yet still claim that a EULA's explicit prohibition against reselling the licensed software is invalid? It would seem to me that if Sony did include a clause in its PS3's EULA forbidding the resale of the PS3, that clause would withstand judicial scrutiny and be upheld. At least it would in any federal court within the Ninth Circuit.

Did you miss the part where the lower court ruled in the exact opposite direction, and it still hasn't hit the supreme court? This is a legal gray area at best.

Edit: And upon re-reading the post you were quoting, the only reason the resale was possible to prevent on that one was because the 9th circuit overturned the ruling of the lower court which said it more closely resembled a sale than a license. The right of first sale applies to, you know, sales. I would expect a lawyer to be at least as careful with properly presenting an issue as an academic; I guess I shouldn't expect that from a profession which exists to prove one side of an issue and that side only.

How did I misrepresent the case? I said "the [Ninth Circuit], applying its three-part 'license or sale' test, ruled that there was in fact a license (even though it was a shrink-wrapped license), not a sale, and therefore a second-hand sale of the program was validly restricted." That's an accurate presentation of the Court's ruling, I think.

And that Court's ruling is nowhere near the United States Supreme Court. Vernor hasn't even filed a petition for certiorari (the probability of which being granted, if he does, is 1 in 1,000). Rather, Vernor has filed for an en banc hearing (i.e., a hearing by all the judges of the Ninth Circuit). And, unless and until the Ninth, sitting en banc, reverses the unanimous ruling of the three-judge panel, the three-judge panel's ruling, which overturned the District Court's ruling, is the controlling law. It may not be "well-settled" law but it ain't nowhere near "gray."

And the three-part test articulated by the three-judge panel of the Ninth is:

(1) whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license,(2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user?s ability to transfer the software, and (3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions.

If we apply this three-part test to any of the Big Three's EULAs, the conclusion to be drawn, I think, is that their software is indeed offered on a licensor-licensee basis, not as a sale. Therefore, if they did (although they don't) prohibit by the terms of their EULAs any second-hand sales of their consoles, I think that prohibition would be upheld within the Ninth Circuit.

And what makes you think that lawyers and academics neatly divide into two separate camps? Never heard of "a law professor?" Very few of my law school professors were not lawyers before they entered academia. In fact, many of them still maintained active bar admissions and actively practiced law. To cite but one example, Alan Dershowitz was simultaneously representing OJ Simpson at trial and lecturing at Harvard Law School (where he is a tenured professor).

 

[Therumancer]

Alright, this discussion has gotten into the domain of law and I think the situation can be summarized simply:

The gaming industry, or heck I could say the media industry itself (music, movies, etc... people have talked about it for decades), is corrupt and powerful. Like many industries that have gotten this powerful they have bought themselves laws that allow them to exploit people for their own benefit and be even more corrupt. Things like the DMCA are hardly new, nor are conflicts over things like EULAs and companies argueing that they are simpy liscencing you the right to use something and maintaining full control of it, these laws have been around for years now.

It's both correct, and shows people being observant, that a lot of these laws directly violate protections that citizens/consumers have, at least within US law. The thing is though that the US legal system is a chaotic mess of precedent and contridictory policies. This is why lawyers are relatively common, and make big bucks. Legal battles rarely involve looking into a lawbook and reading what it says, lawyers would be out of business if that was the case. It comes down to looking at all the relevent laws and rulings and then making a case on how such things should be applied right then and there.

There are a LOT of laws and such on the books that shouldn't exist or be enforced, companies pay money to politicians all the time (it's a huge topic of political debate) to get policies they want put into law. What's more one of the reasons why the big companies that do this maintain such huge legal teams is that they generally go out of the way to hire the experts in those areas of law that could get their own laws repealed. Basically, you can't even hire the guys most likely to win one of these cases or get some of these ridiculous laws laughed off the books because anyone who has the knowleged to do so typically winds up contracted and facing a conflict of interests to represent you. As a result, it's a rare exception when you see such cases fought properly, with most battles following very specific legal pathways that are both expected and easy to counter.

The end result is that you can argue back and forth about who is right, and get nowhere, in the end it comes down to who has the money and the legal power right now, and that happens to be the corperate interests in matters like this. It's possible someone will get things like the DMCA tossed out of the body of law, because quite honestly it doesn't belong there, but right now that doesn't seem likely to happen.

As far as the case being discussed goes, it's actually pretty straightforward with Sony trying to toss up a defensive smokescreen. Sony sold people a product with very specific features, and then decided those features represented a potential threat to their bottom line, so decided to try and lock people out of what they paid for. Geohotz restored the functionality people paid for to their products, and Sony is blowing a gasket over it.

In a clear, and straightforward sense, Sony is dead wrong. They can argue legal justifications and what their rights are under the laws that business has managed to get passed, but that doesn't change the fact that they are pretty much screwing their customers out of something they paid for, entirely for their own benefit. Maybe they screwed up in releasing the product the way they did, but that in no way should be taken out on the consumers which is what they have been doing.

You can argue about the potential uses for what Geohotz has been restoring, but the bottom line is that the PS-3 was on the market for a long time before this, and there wasn't that much of a big deal. It was making money, and Sony was doing quite well. It's not like the fate of the company, or even the success of the product line (and the PS-3 is VERY successful in any objective sense, even if other consoles are more successful) is in jeopardy. This entire thing is Sony deciding to exercise a power trip, getting slapped down, and throwing a tantrum as a result.

In a case of straightforward right vs. wrong, Sony should lose this one. I don't think businesses are always wrong, but in this case they are. Unfortunatly with the way the laws work in the US, that really isn't the case, especially in matters like this it all comes down to the laws... and honestly it's not just about who has the best lawyers, but about who pays off the most politicians to put the laws into force they want those lawyers to use. Things like the DMCA and how wrong they are, are exactly the kind of thing people are talking about when they go off about wanting to limit private donations to politicians, and all the ways PACS (Political Action Comittees) can find ways to pay them/sway them.


-

As far as Anonymous goes, it's a mixed bag as I've said before. They aren't a group of white knights, and don't EVER get that impression. They even tell people this themselves.

I might agree with them on some things, but I disagree with them on others. This is to say nothing of the majority of their body of work which is simply to foster pointless chaos and "lulz", and which has no real overall point or agenda behind it.

I see Anonymous as sort of a force of nature ironically, which is I guess what they want. Right now the wind is blowing in a direction I like as far as they are concerned, but with other issues and actions that will doubtlessly change.

 

[JDKJ]

Alright, this discussion has gotten into the domain of law and I think the situation can be summarized simply:

The gaming industry, or heck I could say the media industry itself (music, movies, etc... people have talked about it for decades), is corrupt and powerful. Like many industries that have gotten this powerful they have bought themselves laws that allow them to exploit people for their own benefit and be even more corrupt. Things like the DMCA are hardly new, nor are conflicts over things like EULAs and companies argueing that they are simpy liscencing you the right to use something and maintaining full control of it, these laws have been around for years now.

It's both correct, and shows people being observant, that a lot of these laws directly violate protections that citizens/consumers have, at least within US law. The thing is though that the US legal system is a chaotic mess of precedent and contridictory policies. This is why lawyers are relatively common, and make big bucks. Legal battles rarely involve looking into a lawbook and reading what it says, lawyers would be out of business if that was the case. It comes down to looking at all the relevent laws and rulings and then making a case on how such things should be applied right then and there.

There are a LOT of laws and such on the books that shouldn't exist or be enforced, companies pay money to politicians all the time (it's a huge topic of political debate) to get policies they want put into law. What's more one of the reasons why the big companies that do this maintain such huge legal teams is that they generally go out of the way to hire the experts in those areas of law that could get their own laws repealed. Basically, you can't even hire the guys most likely to win one of these cases or get some of these ridiculous laws laughed off the books because anyone who has the knowleged to do so typically winds up contracted and facing a conflict of interests to represent you. As a result, it's a rare exception when you see such cases fought properly, with most battles following very specific legal pathways that are both expected and easy to counter.

The end result is that you can argue back and forth about who is right, and get nowhere, in the end it comes down to who has the money and the legal power right now, and that happens to be the corperate interests in matters like this. It's possible someone will get things like the DMCA tossed out of the body of law, because quite honestly it doesn't belong there, but right now that doesn't seem likely to happen.

As far as the case being discussed goes, it's actually pretty straightforward with Sony trying to toss up a defensive smokescreen. Sony sold people a product with very specific features, and then decided those features represented a potential threat to their bottom line, so decided to try and lock people out of what they paid for. Geohotz restored the functionality people paid for to their products, and Sony is blowing a gasket over it.

In a clear, and straightforward sense, Sony is dead wrong. They can argue legal justifications and what their rights are under the laws that business has managed to get passed, but that doesn't change the fact that they are pretty much screwing their customers out of something they paid for, entirely for their own benefit. Maybe they screwed up in releasing the product the way they did, but that in no way should be taken out on the consumers which is what they have been doing.

You can argue about the potential uses for what Geohotz has been restoring, but the bottom line is that the PS-3 was on the market for a long time before this, and there wasn't that much of a big deal. It was making money, and Sony was doing quite well. It's not like the fate of the company, or even the success of the product line (and the PS-3 is VERY successful in any objective sense, even if other consoles are more successful) is in jeopardy. This entire thing is Sony deciding to exercise a power trip, getting slapped down, and throwing a tantrum as a result.

In a case of straightforward right vs. wrong, Sony should lose this one. I don't think businesses are always wrong, but in this case they are. Unfortunatly with the way the laws work in the US, that really isn't the case, especially in matters like this it all comes down to the laws... and honestly it's not just about who has the best lawyers, but about who pays off the most politicians to put the laws into force they want those lawyers to use. Things like the DMCA and how wrong they are, are exactly the kind of thing people are talking about when they go off about wanting to limit private donations to politicians, and all the ways PACS (Political Action Comittees) can find ways to pay them/sway them.


-

As far as Anonymous goes, it's a mixed bag as I've said before. They aren't a group of white knights, and don't EVER get that impression. They even tell people this themselves.

I might agree with them on some things, but I disagree with them on others. This is to say nothing of the majority of their body of work which is simply to foster pointless chaos and "lulz", and which has no real overall point or agenda behind it.

I see Anonymous as sort of a force of nature ironically, which is I guess what they want. Right now the wind is blowing in a direction I like as far as they are concerned, but with other issues and actions that will doubtlessly change.

Unfortunately, Georgie Boy did more than just "restore the functionality people paid for." He also, in so doing, made it possible to play pirated games on a PS3. That's why Sony removed the OtherOS feature in the first place: piracy. You blame Sony for responding to piracy? What would you suggest they do? Sit on their ass and let piracy go unchecked? Is there any other for-profit business that responds to infringement by saying, "Fuck it. What's a little infringement here and there gonna cost us? It ain't no big deal." I'll bet that if you were the one who had sunk millions of dollars into developing and marketing your intellectual property, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

And what's striking me as more than just a little incongruous is that for someone who has posted what I think are more than a few posts that are politically right-leaning in substance (and I'll admit that I could be misinterpreting your posts -- after all, you could easily be a card-carding member of the Communist Party), you would complain about Big Corporation's ability to influence the legislative and judicial processes. Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which flung wide-open the floodgates for corporate and PAC lobbying) and you'll see where the Justices that voted in favor of the corporations and PACs are all the right-leaning Justices. The left-leaning Justices all voted against the corporations and PACs.

Vote Obama in 2012! Vote early and often! Socialism is America's only hope for salvation!

P.S. And you're argument about Big Corporation co-opting all the good attorneys in somewhat undermined by no less an authority than Georgie Boy himself, who claims that his solo-practice attorney, Stewart Kellar, is not only fully capable of taking on SCEA's powerhouse law firm of Kilpatrick Townsend, but is also, he confidently predicts, going to kick SCEA's ass in court.

 

[Linkassassin360]

Wait, Anonymous had a press release?
Its funny, I have to say the way you represented them you make them seem like an organization. Its interesting, and strange at the same time. But, anyhow, they are really doing the wrong thing here. They claim that the hackers are the victims, and then proceed to go on the attack? A complete reversal of their position.
A perfect example of doing it wrong.

 

[JDKJ]

Wait, Anonymous had a press release?
Its funny, I have to say the way you represented them you make them seem like an organization. Its interesting, and strange at the same time. But, anyhow, they are really doing the wrong thing here. They claim that the hackers are the victims, and then proceed to go on the attack? A complete reversal of their position.
A perfect example of doing it wrong.

Talk about doing it wrong. They claimed to be doing what they were doing on behalf of consumers and then proceeded to launch a DDoS attack that effectively robbed those very same consumers of the ability to take advantage of a service for which they'd paid good money in advance. And then reversed course when they finally figured out that their DDoS was negatively impacting the consumers more than it was negatively impacting Sony.

Anonymous should stay away from the game of chess, which requires the ability to formulate winning strategies and to see several moves ahead of the move currently being made. Instead, they should limited themselves to the game of checkers, which is kinda like chess but much more suited for the severely retarded.

 

[Therumancer]

[
Unfortunately, Georgie Boy did more than just "restore the functionality people paid for." He also, in so doing, made it possible to play pirated games on a PS3. That's why Sony removed the OtherOS feature in the first place: piracy. You blame Sony for responding to piracy? What would you suggest they do? Sit on their ass and let piracy go unchecked? Is there any other for-profit business that responds to infringement by saying, "Fuck it. What's a little infringement here and there gonna cost us? It ain't no big deal." I'll bet that if you were the one who had sunk millions of dollars into developing and marketing your intellectual property, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

And what's striking me as more than just a little incongruous is that for someone who has posted what I think are more than a few posts that are politically right-leaning in substance (and I'll admit that I could be misinterpreting your posts -- after all, you could easily be a card-carding member of the Communist Party), you would complain about Big Corporation's ability to influence the legislative and judicial processes. Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which flung wide-open the floodgates for corporate and PAC lobbying) and you'll see where the Justices that voted in favor of the corporations and PACs are all the right-leaning Justices. The left-leaning Justices all voted against the corporations and PACs.

Vote Obama in 2012! Vote early and often!

Actually my political views are a mixed bag depending on the issue. I tend to agree with the right wing a lot more than the left wing, which is why I am registered Republican (as I want to vote in that primary) but I have a number of fairly left-leaning ideals. I for example am very pro-union, and pro-choice even if I don't support the idea of the goverment funding abortions (but then again there are a lot of things I don't think the goverment should be funding, even if I have no problems with whatever the thing itself is).

The thing you have to understand is that Sony provided the product with that feature and decided to remove the feature afterwards. Yes, it CAN be used for piracy, but that isn't the fault of the people who bought the system and want to make use of that feature. A lighter can be used for Arson, that doesn't mean they should stop selling them.

It should be understood that while piracy is wrong,so are the anti-piracy practices (accross the spectrum) one of those cases of two wrongs not making a right. As I said originally, this is not a case where the either the company, or even the product line, is in any substantial danger from piracy. Heck, piracy has been around as long as gaming has been, and it's grown into a massive multi-billion dollar industry. It's not like piracy is actually dragging down the industry, or threatens to cause it to collapse. Complaints about piracy are universally from people who are making mountains of money, looking at the bigger mountains of money they might be able to make.

Believe it or not, I *AM* a big defender of capitalism. I am however a believe in common sense. The problem inherant in a capitalist system is that you ultimatly wind up with a bunch of idiots who wind up getting too greedy and more or less ruining everything for everyone else. The modern US ideal of capitalism is to put limitations on it. We have rules in force preventing things like monopolies, and designed to prevent cartel-type behavior for example. I think likewise there should be limitations on how far a company can go to "protect" it's interests and properties at the expense of the freedoms of the general populance. This is one of the big battles in the modern arena of business, and that's why we have companies buying so many laws that favor them, and cases like the one we're looking at being pursued. Aside from wanting to punish Geohotz as a deterrant, Sony doubtlessly also wants the case to form a precedent that can be referanced later and built on as it gradually as it endeavors to step harder and harder on the consumer. The more precedent in favor of a law, the harder it becomes to ultimatly overturn that law irregardless of whether it should have ever existed
or not.

My point isn't so much that piracy is right, but that sony is wrong. They promised a feature with legitimate uses, and then decided to take that away because they decided later it might not be in their best interests. At that point it was too late as far as I'm concerned and they have to take responsibility for their own product and sales, just as they expect other people to abide by agreements with them.

I'd probably feel differantly about the subject if there was any kind of actual threat involved here. There isn't one however, we're dealing with a company that is making millions upon millions of dollars in profits. Their motivation here is not to save themselves from going out of business here, but simply to make more money. They are stepping on the consumers for no other reason than because all of that money is not enough for them.

Like it or not you have to balance the interests of big business, against the interests of the general populance. Just because piracy is wrong doesn't justify doing things that are even more wrong to larger group of people.

 

[JDKJ]

[
Unfortunately, Georgie Boy did more than just "restore the functionality people paid for." He also, in so doing, made it possible to play pirated games on a PS3. That's why Sony removed the OtherOS feature in the first place: piracy. You blame Sony for responding to piracy? What would you suggest they do? Sit on their ass and let piracy go unchecked? Is there any other for-profit business that responds to infringement by saying, "Fuck it. What's a little infringement here and there gonna cost us? It ain't no big deal." I'll bet that if you were the one who had sunk millions of dollars into developing and marketing your intellectual property, you'd be singing an entirely different tune.

And what's striking me as more than just a little incongruous is that for someone who has posted what I think are more than a few posts that are politically right-leaning in substance (and I'll admit that I could be misinterpreting your posts -- after all, you could easily be a card-carding member of the Communist Party), you would complain about Big Corporation's ability to influence the legislative and judicial processes. Take a look at the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which flung wide-open the floodgates for corporate and PAC lobbying) and you'll see where the Justices that voted in favor of the corporations and PACs are all the right-leaning Justices. The left-leaning Justices all voted against the corporations and PACs.

Vote Obama in 2012! Vote early and often!

Actually my political views are a mixed bag depending on the issue. I tend to agree with the right wing a lot more than the left wing, which is why I am registered Republican (as I want to vote in that primary) but I have a number of fairly left-leaning ideals. I for example am very pro-union, and pro-choice even if I don't support the idea of the goverment funding abortions (but then again there are a lot of things I don't think the goverment should be funding, even if I have no problems with whatever the thing itself is).

The thing you have to understand is that Sony provided the product with that feature and decided to remove the feature afterwards. Yes, it CAN be used for piracy, but that isn't the fault of the people who bought the system and want to make use of that feature. A lighter can be used for Arson, that doesn't mean they should stop selling them.

It should be understood that while piracy is wrong,so are the anti-piracy practices (accross the spectrum) one of those cases of two wrongs not making a right. As I said originally, this is not a case where the either the company, or even the product line, is in any substantial danger from piracy. Heck, piracy has been around as long as gaming has been, and it's grown into a massive multi-billion dollar industry. It's not like piracy is actually dragging down the industry, or threatens to cause it to collapse. Complaints about piracy are universally from people who are making mountains of money, looking at the bigger mountains of money they might be able to make.

Believe it or not, I *AM* a big defender of capitalism. I am however a believe in common sense. The problem inherant in a capitalist system is that you ultimatly wind up with a bunch of idiots who wind up getting too greedy and more or less ruining everything for everyone else. The modern US ideal of capitalism is to put limitations on it. We have rules in force preventing things like monopolies, and designed to prevent cartel-type behavior for example. I think likewise there should be limitations on how far a company can go to "protect" it's interests and properties at the expense of the freedoms of the general populance. This is one of the big battles in the modern arena of business, and that's why we have companies buying so many laws that favor them, and cases like the one we're looking at being pursued. Aside from wanting to punish Geohotz as a deterrant, Sony doubtlessly also wants the case to form a precedent that can be referanced later and built on as it gradually as it endeavors to step harder and harder on the consumer. The more precedent in favor of a law, the harder it becomes to ultimatly overturn that law irregardless of whether it should have ever existed
or not.

My point isn't so much that piracy is right, but that sony is wrong. They promised a feature with legitimate uses, and then decided to take that away because they decided later it might not be in their best interests. At that point it was too late as far as I'm concerned and they have to take responsibility for their own product and sales, just as they expect other people to abide by agreements with them.

I'd probably feel differantly about the subject if there was any kind of actual threat involved here. There isn't one however, we're dealing with a company that is making millions upon millions of dollars in profits. Their motivation here is not to save themselves from going out of business here, but simply to make more money. They are stepping on the consumers for no other reason than because all of that money is not enough for them.

Like it or not you have to balance the interests of big business, against the interests of the general populance. Just because piracy is wrong doesn't justify doing things that are even more wrong to larger group of people.

Fair enough. Some of my best friends are conservative on fiscal issues yet liberal on social issues. It ain't, I don't think, as contradictory as it sounds.

As for your "the good shouldn't have to suffer for the bad" position, unfortunately, sometimes the good do suffer for the bad. Life's a ***** sometimes. No one said it was gonna be fair. Instead of rushing Sony's castle with pitchforks and torches, as so many have done (including Anonymous and a large part of the Escapist community) maybe if all that ire was instead directed at the pirates, who, if you ask me, are the most guilty party, the good wouldn't have to suffer for the bad. Which does kinda leave me wondering if all the people rushing the castle aren't themselves guilty of piracy. That would tend to explain why they aren't pointing any fingers at the pirates.

 

[BRex21]

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):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

Outta curiosity, what percentage of the market for PS3 sales do you think Best Buy has? Compared to EBGames? And if nothing else, at least you've learned something today: quit spending your money at EBGames where you don't have the ability to return your purchases. Instead, take your ass to Best Buy, where there's a liberal return policy.

And why would you ever think that I, who posted a New York court opinion involving a shrink-wrapped EULA, and to which you responded, wouldn't know what a shrink-wrapped EULA is? C'mon, man.

And why do you keep babbling about EULAs being "signed?" Ninety-nine percent of all EULAs don't require signature. You either (a) "click-through" or (b) your consent is implied by use and access.

I assumed you didnt know what a "shrink wrapped EULA" is because you obviously didnt do much research, if you did you would know that these cases boil down to a judge more than the law and that in more than half of these cases go to the defendant. Since even wikipedia would tell you its a draw i would have to assume you didnt even go THAT far, as you said it was an obvious win for Sony, when anyone familiar with the term "Shrink Wrap Contract" knows that it is in fact a defence.
Also i could care less about how many people buy there consoles at Best Buy, it dosnt matter, THEIR return policy isnt in question. That responsibility falls on Sony themselves and if a retailer wants to save money by not having to mark down opend package they can do that.
Oh and technically in legal terms when you click "i agree" on your EULA thats called signing, same as marking an X on a contract if you cant write.

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:

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.

Congratulations you can pick out the half of the documents that support your own side, as i said, even wikipedia could tell you this is still a draw, it will come down to a judge and Sony has a slightly less than 50% shot in finding that judge. Oh wait, Sony is trying to get this MOVED to California, as you have so nicely pointed out is where they have agreeable precidents, Interesting.
Oh, and since 2000 US federal law has stated that clicking "I Agree" constitutes an electronic signature.

 

[JDKJ]

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):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

Outta curiosity, what percentage of the market for PS3 sales do you think Best Buy has? Compared to EBGames? And if nothing else, at least you've learned something today: quit spending your money at EBGames where you don't have the ability to return your purchases. Instead, take your ass to Best Buy, where there's a liberal return policy.

And why would you ever think that I, who posted a New York court opinion involving a shrink-wrapped EULA, and to which you responded, wouldn't know what a shrink-wrapped EULA is? C'mon, man.

And why do you keep babbling about EULAs being "signed?" Ninety-nine percent of all EULAs don't require signature. You either (a) "click-through" or (b) your consent is implied by use and access.

I assumed you didnt know what a "shrink wrapped EULA" is because you obviously didnt do much research, if you did you would know that these cases boil down to a judge more than the law and that in more than half of these cases go to the defendant. Since even wikipedia would tell you its a draw i would have to assume you didnt even go THAT far, as you said it was an obvious win for Sony, when anyone familiar with the term "Shrink Wrap Contract" knows that it is in fact a defence.
Also i could care less about how many people buy there consoles at Best Buy, it dosnt matter, THEIR return policy isnt in question. That responsibility falls on Sony themselves and if a retailer wants to save money by not having to mark down opend package they can do that.
Oh and technically in legal terms when you click "i agree" on your EULA thats called signing, same as marking an X on a contract if you cant write.

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:

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.

Congratulations you can pick out the half of the documents that support your own side, as i said, even wikipedia could tell you this is still a draw, it will come down to a judge and Sony has a slightly less than 50% shot in finding that judge. Oh wait, Sony is trying to get this MOVED to California, as you have so nicely pointed out is where they have agreeable precidents, Interesting.
Oh, and since 2000 US federal law has stated that clicking "I Agree" constitutes an electronic signature.

No, it's already in California. Hotz, before he settled, was, effectively, trying to get it moved to New Jersey.

Given that the federal laws passed since 2000, if laid out page by page and end to end, could circle the planet several times over, if you can provide a citation to the particular law you claim makes clicking "I Agree" a "signature," that would be most helpful. And would disincline me to respond, "bullshit," as I am already inclined to do.

Oh, and just so you know, I have personally read thousands of motion, briefs, court decisions, etc., etc., etc., and not once have I ever seen anyone cite to wikipedia as an authority in support of any proposition. I'm sure that if you spend the time and effort to rummage around the 'net, you can come up with a more authoritative source than wiki on which to rely.

 

[BRex21]

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):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

Outta curiosity, what percentage of the market for PS3 sales do you think Best Buy has? Compared to EBGames? And if nothing else, at least you've learned something today: quit spending your money at EBGames where you don't have the ability to return your purchases. Instead, take your ass to Best Buy, where there's a liberal return policy.

And why would you ever think that I, who posted a New York court opinion involving a shrink-wrapped EULA, and to which you responded, wouldn't know what a shrink-wrapped EULA is? C'mon, man.

And why do you keep babbling about EULAs being "signed?" Ninety-nine percent of all EULAs don't require signature. You either (a) "click-through" or (b) your consent is implied by use and access.

I assumed you didnt know what a "shrink wrapped EULA" is because you obviously didnt do much research, if you did you would know that these cases boil down to a judge more than the law and that in more than half of these cases go to the defendant. Since even wikipedia would tell you its a draw i would have to assume you didnt even go THAT far, as you said it was an obvious win for Sony, when anyone familiar with the term "Shrink Wrap Contract" knows that it is in fact a defence.
Also i could care less about how many people buy there consoles at Best Buy, it dosnt matter, THEIR return policy isnt in question. That responsibility falls on Sony themselves and if a retailer wants to save money by not having to mark down opend package they can do that.
Oh and technically in legal terms when you click "i agree" on your EULA thats called signing, same as marking an X on a contract if you cant write.

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:

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.

Congratulations you can pick out the half of the documents that support your own side, as i said, even wikipedia could tell you this is still a draw, it will come down to a judge and Sony has a slightly less than 50% shot in finding that judge. Oh wait, Sony is trying to get this MOVED to California, as you have so nicely pointed out is where they have agreeable precidents, Interesting.
Oh, and since 2000 US federal law has stated that clicking "I Agree" constitutes an electronic signature.

No, it's already in California. Hotz, before he settled, was, effectively, trying to get it moved to New Jersey.

Given that the federal laws passed since 2000, if laid out page by page and end to end, could circle the planet several times over, if you can provide a citation to the particular law you claim makes clicking "I Agree" a "signature," that would be most helpful. And would disincline me to respond, "bullshit," as I am already inclined to do.

Oh, and just so you know, I have personally read thousands of motion, briefs, court decisions, etc., etc., etc., and not once have I ever seen anyone cite to wikipedia as an authority in support of any proposition. I'm sure that if you spend the time and effort to rummage around the 'net, you can come up with a more authoritative source than wiki on which to rely.

Okay you are right, they were trying to keep it in California, and when you are going so far as to find out where the money for his lawsuit came from to prove jurisdiction I think you are pretty much scraping at the bottom of the barrel.
Also, since we are talking about electronic signatures and since the law i was specifically refering to was the "electronic signatures act of 2000" it should have been pretty easy to find. I was however wrong in my assumption that it was the first, the The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999 actually labled an act of agreeing with a document as an "electronic signature"
and again, you missed the point, you could have read thousands of motion briefs, court decisions, archie commics, whatever and come up with all the examples you want that support your side, I could do the same for mine. If you have the time to waste doing that go right ahead, youre still cherry picking and you cant PROVE the contracts enforcable by precident because they can and have gone either way with no uniform rulings.

 

[JDKJ]

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):

First off, I wasnt aware everyone bought their consoles from best buy now. I know my EBgames wont take an open console. Since its on Sony not the retailer we have to take every retailer into account, not just the big box. Besides future shop wont take used PCs back without a reason, its not on their reciepts, but its perfectly reasonable. There isn't any way to prove they wont need to refurbish the product once they take it back, and time costs money. also note that you only have a partial list, thats some of the items they wont take back.
As for repeating shrink wrap contract, You ignored it when i said it once, and you still dont seem to get it. You cant make someone sign a contract after you take their money.

Outta curiosity, what percentage of the market for PS3 sales do you think Best Buy has? Compared to EBGames? And if nothing else, at least you've learned something today: quit spending your money at EBGames where you don't have the ability to return your purchases. Instead, take your ass to Best Buy, where there's a liberal return policy.

And why would you ever think that I, who posted a New York court opinion involving a shrink-wrapped EULA, and to which you responded, wouldn't know what a shrink-wrapped EULA is? C'mon, man.

And why do you keep babbling about EULAs being "signed?" Ninety-nine percent of all EULAs don't require signature. You either (a) "click-through" or (b) your consent is implied by use and access.

I assumed you didnt know what a "shrink wrapped EULA" is because you obviously didnt do much research, if you did you would know that these cases boil down to a judge more than the law and that in more than half of these cases go to the defendant. Since even wikipedia would tell you its a draw i would have to assume you didnt even go THAT far, as you said it was an obvious win for Sony, when anyone familiar with the term "Shrink Wrap Contract" knows that it is in fact a defence.
Also i could care less about how many people buy there consoles at Best Buy, it dosnt matter, THEIR return policy isnt in question. That responsibility falls on Sony themselves and if a retailer wants to save money by not having to mark down opend package they can do that.
Oh and technically in legal terms when you click "i agree" on your EULA thats called signing, same as marking an X on a contract if you cant write.

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:

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.

Congratulations you can pick out the half of the documents that support your own side, as i said, even wikipedia could tell you this is still a draw, it will come down to a judge and Sony has a slightly less than 50% shot in finding that judge. Oh wait, Sony is trying to get this MOVED to California, as you have so nicely pointed out is where they have agreeable precidents, Interesting.
Oh, and since 2000 US federal law has stated that clicking "I Agree" constitutes an electronic signature.

No, it's already in California. Hotz, before he settled, was, effectively, trying to get it moved to New Jersey.

Given that the federal laws passed since 2000, if laid out page by page and end to end, could circle the planet several times over, if you can provide a citation to the particular law you claim makes clicking "I Agree" a "signature," that would be most helpful. And would disincline me to respond, "bullshit," as I am already inclined to do.

Oh, and just so you know, I have personally read thousands of motion, briefs, court decisions, etc., etc., etc., and not once have I ever seen anyone cite to wikipedia as an authority in support of any proposition. I'm sure that if you spend the time and effort to rummage around the 'net, you can come up with a more authoritative source than wiki on which to rely.

Okay you are right, they were trying to keep it in California, and when you are going so far as to find out where the money for his lawsuit came from to prove jurisdiction I think you are pretty much scraping at the bottom of the barrel.
Also, since we are talking about electronic signatures and since the law i was specifically refering to was the "electronic signatures act of 2000" it should have been pretty easy to find. I was however wrong in my assumption that it was the first, the The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of 1999 actually labled an act of agreeing with a document as an "electronic signature"
and again, you missed the point, you could have read thousands of motion briefs, court decisions, archie commics, whatever and come up with all the examples you want that support your side, I could do the same for mine. If you have the time to waste doing that go right ahead, youre still cherry picking and you cant PROVE the contracts enforcable by precident because they can and have gone either way with no uniform rulings.

But if the case had remained in California, the law there's pretty clear that shrink-wrapped EULAs are valid contracts. A California court will look first and foremost to California law. What a court in Idaho has to say on the issue don't matter -- not if California's courts have repeatedly ruled on the issue.

 

[BRex21]

But if the case had remained in California, the law there's pretty clear that shrink-wrapped EULAs are valid contracts. A California court will look first and foremost to California law. What a court in Idaho has to say on the issue don't matter -- not if California's courts have repeatedly ruled on the issue.

Yet the ninth court of appeals inc California also ruled against Blizzard (MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.) saying that violating the terms of use in a EULA, by using game changing software, didn't harm any of Blizzards rights, despite the fact that they had a written agreement saying they wouldn't do this.
This is probably closer to the Sony V GeoHot thing, AND it was ruled in California BUT since the courts go either way on this it is going to come down to a lot more than people going back and forth citing precident.
Still if a shrink wrapped contract is universally valid, why is a case where someone has so blatantly violated it being thrown out?

 

[JDKJ]

But if the case had remained in California, the law there's pretty clear that shrink-wrapped EULAs are valid contracts. A California court will look first and foremost to California law. What a court in Idaho has to say on the issue don't matter -- not if California's courts have repeatedly ruled on the issue.

Yet the ninth court of appeals inc California also ruled against Blizzard (MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc.) saying that violating the terms of use in a EULA, by using game changing software, didn't harm any of Blizzards rights, despite the fact that they had a written agreement saying they wouldn't do this.
This is probably closer to the Sony V GeoHot thing, AND it was ruled in California BUT since the courts go either way on this it is going to come down to a lot more than people going back and forth citing precident.
Still if a shrink wrapped contract is universally valid, why is a case where someone has so blatantly violated it being thrown out?

You may want to re-read that case. That's not really what is says. It doesn't find that the EULA and TOU at issue were in any way invalid. It says that the required "nexus" between the terms of the TOU and the claimed copyright infringement was not presented by the facts of the matter and therefore no infringement occured.

In fact, the Court's finding on the separate issue that there was a violation of the DMCA by circumvention of WOW's access control mechanism would make it the kind of case that SCEA would want to use against Hotz.

 

[Laxman9292]

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.

Abusing the system? I think not, they are using the system to protect their intellectual property rights, just as the hackers are trying to protect their property rights. It is the purpose of the system to resolve these issues.
Just because you buy a Coke are you entitled to know the secret formula? No because then you could steal what they developed and make it on your own without any profit going to the people who earned it. Beverage piracy, just like how leaking the PS3 source code could lead to piracy.

Now I understand the need for hackers in white hat scenarios (testing security protocols for legitimate reasons, i.e. not for t3h lulz) but when black hats get involved for selfish reasons like this there is no flimsy excuse they can give to put them in the right. Especially seeing how Sony isn't doing anything any of you wouldn't do if someone tried to give something you're selling away for free after stealing it from you.

 

[magnuslion]

Are consumers ever going to get tired of big companies stomping all over their faces? when you BUY something you have the right to it. You have the right to modify, change, or throw your ps3 out a damn window. They do not have the right to tell you what to do with YOUR property.