Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[creager91]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

 

[Vanbael]

As long as whatever they do doesnt affect my trophy count I'm fine with it. They are pretty much wasting their time DDoSing a website, as itll have little to no effect on the court case

I don't even think the lawyers for Sony will even give a shit about their client's website going down. Hell, the only way they will give a damn is if it gives them more to use against Geohot. This could get interesting now.


Captcha: Wang, vicedst? I'm not into S&M but that sounds well, not what I don't want.

 

[Jakey113G]

They're right the charges are over the top mundane however I don't think they have a right to attack sony in such a way considering that they are just trying to prevent software piracy. Lets be honest his hacking as led to misery for loads as the spread of this information has caused people to misue the information ruining games for people this is unfair and unjust.

So in all right both sony and the hacker are in the wrong and anonymous shouldn't get involved.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

*snip*

I think this might be why, it's why it feels off for me

SONY isn't abusing the legal system, they're USING the legal system. You might think what they're suing for is wrong, but if the judge allows the case to go through, it's because it's not abusing the legal system and a case can be made by both sides. You might not like what SONY is doing, but a legal battle is a viable option for SONY, they are using it, and if you don't understand that, tough.

I've supported Anon' MANY times in the past, including the WBC bollocks they went through, but they were right for that. WBC was pushing hate on the world. SONY is not abusing the legal system, they are simply using that method

Why is it that EVERY TIME someone twitches the wrong way, Anonymous goes "You are abusing the public and misusing all of this! We shall teach you a lesson!" like their donning batman's fucking cape? I can understand it if they get involved in an issue or two, but now they're hacking for the sake of hacking, they're watching everything going "Can we find a reason to hack for that? no...... How about that? ...... no....... OOooooh, lets do THIS!!!!"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Either they were right in attacking the WBC and they're right in attacking Sony, or they aren't right in either case.

You can't pick and choose, as both are equally illegal. Adjusting your ethics based on how much you dislike one group makes you no better than the idiots at Westboro.

Legality and Ethicality are two different things. It might be legal to sue someone for millions when they work a blue collar job, but does that make it right? Yes, Anon's hacking was illegal in BOTH cases, but it seems more justifiable in the westboro cases.

Oh, and try to keep this civil. You don't don't see me insulting anyone, so kindly don't insult me.

But you equated "illegal" with "unethical" when you said that what Sony is doing is legal, and thus they should be left alone.

*Directly* conforming to that logic, what Westboro is doing is *legal*, therefore they also should be left alone.

Either legality is unrelated to ethics, and the involved members of Anonymous may be right in both scenarios, or legality and ethics are two sides of the same coin, and they are wrong in both scenarios.

If Steve robs Bob and then Mark robs Dave, you can't punish Mark less just because you think Dave is a dick. Doing so invalidates the entire system.

I am not a robot though, that is the one part of your equation that doesn't match. I don't sit here and think about absolutes. There are grey areas, there will always be grey areas.

This isn't a matter of anyone robbing anything though.

1) Westboro is a dick, we'll admit that. Yeah, what they're doing is legal and they're allowed to, but almost everyone finds it wrong. Not anonymous steps in and says "STOP SLANDERING PEOPLE!" and hack their sites.

2) SONY is suing hackers. Yes, it's legal, and people are 50/50 about if it's right or wrong. Now Anonymous steps in and says "Stop suing people for hacking their own property!" And hack's SONY's property"...

Now is Anonymous hacked their own PS3s, then yes, I can get behind this. It would be a show of numbers.It would make a stand.

The reason I'm not supporting it is because Anon is making a claim that people should be able to hack their own property by hacking someone else's property.

And yes, I have the right to have two differing opinions on if it's RIGHT or WRONG.

In your example, the legal system cannot punish either person more. They both stole. I agree with that. You are right.

Now, if Steve was being a dick and just robbing some guy, and mark stole something because it belonged to him in the first place and Dave stole it from him first, I might have a different opinion. That's the beauty of being human. Our opinions change. Don't call me an idiot because it does

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

You aren't made to sign the EULA (putting aside the fact that you're aren't asked to sign anything, you're acceptance is implied by use of or access to the software in the console). Did Sony stand behind you with gun and demand that you accept their terms or they'll blow your brains out of your skull? I don't think so. So you buy a PS3 from Best Buy, take it home and unbox your PS3 where you discover the EULA. You read the terms of that EULA and find then to be unacceptable. Then you take that shit right back to Best Buy, tell them you don't agree to to the EULA terms that are a precondition of use and insist on a refund or a store credit. I can't imagine Best Buy refusing a refund or store credit. They wouldn't and couldn't pull that shit with me. I'll be the one to plop their PS3 on the counter before them, go home, call my credit card issuer, and have them remove the charge from my account. Plain and simple.

Only, Gamestop won't accept the return of an open item, most places will not. So, it should fall on Sony to refund your money, only they will not (I have never heard of anyone successfully doing that anyway, I'm open to correction). And, going and arbitrarily canceling a credit payment is not legal in all cases. Like, for instance, if you purchase something from a place that won't allow you to return it, then you go and cancel your payment. They should not sell you something without telling you what you are or are not buying. That is intentionally misleading the customer, and that is very illegal.

And, like it or not, they basically are holding a gun against you. And here is why. Politics, law and government concerns itself with a single thing, the use of force. They sell you something, and the law is not on your side, even though you may have been wronged, they can bring the use of force against you. And this use of force is not always violent in nature at first. For instance, they dock your pay money over time to pay for something they say you must pay (The IRS does this all the time). So, like it or not, this whole case is about that. That is the deepest issue we are facing here. If Sony is right, they now have a foot hold within the law to bring the laws use of force against you for things they do not agree with. If they are wrong, the consumer wins the day, and the laws protect the people. Like I stated earlier, this is not about piracy, like it or not. This is about property rights.

Like I said, I'm not relying on the retailer to refund my purchase price. I'm throwing that shit right back at them, going home, and blocking the charge on my credit card. I don't have their product any more. I gave it back to them. I damn sure ain't paying them for it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

But it's not illegal, simply in violation of a contract that is itself of questionable legality; what Geohot did was find out how to modify the software. Making a sheath for a knife has a lot more in common with that than stabbing someone with a knife does. Stabbing would be an accurate comparison if, say, someone found a way to violate the anti-nuclear weapons clause in the iTunes EULA. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's actually a clause in the iTunes EULA that says you can't use the software to make nuclear weapons. How one would do that, I have no idea, but it is in the document.

 

[Shirokurou]

I'm on Sony's side here.
The guy should be a full on pirate criminal if he wants to steal stuff or refrain from leaking root codes into the net and contacting Sony about shit like that (Hell maybe they'd hire him or compensate him for it).

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

Okay, let's break this down. Is the problem that he is not allowed to do whatever he want with a console that he bought? Note, he does still not own the software that runs it. If yes, why is that a problem?

The problem is really that, people purchase a system with an understanding that they own it. I agree, they cannot "own" (in the property rights sense of the word) the software. They lease it, I am fine with this. The actual issue is that Sony seems to reserve the right to block or remove features from the system at their own behest. Such as, I buy a system and if I don't update it, I cannot play new games. I only want to play games on it, but I'm not allowed unless I update. Furthermore, say I want to play against friends on an older game, I'm not allowed to because I didn't update my system, perhaps because I don't agree with the newest EULA. They have blocked a feature that I bought the system for. This is a problem. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their head around. I buy something for no other purpose than to play video games with my friends. They have the right to prevent me from doing that, despite the fact that it's the reason they made and I bought the system?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

It's never a good idea to take openly aggressive actions towards a corporate giant. No matter your intentions, it will come down to the courts in the end, and with the cash on hand, sony will be able to sway the courts in their favour with these actions.

Rather then trying to drop in and blindside sony in the most juvenile manner (its akin to hitting a teacher in the back of the head with a ball of paper while he's scolding another student), they should accept that sony will still crush the people who publicly call them out. Its the public image that matters and any attack on Anons part will reflect badly on Hotz or whoever is going through the courts over this.

Slapping a giant like sony, whether it be for shits or giggles, or some righteous crusade, will result in more harm then good. Not only that, it will probably yield no long term benefits and minute short term gains if any at all.

If you want to beat Sony, Sway the courts... don't slap them, don't threaten them... CONVINCE them that Sony is wrong. If they are truly going against the law or are in breach of real rights, then a paradox in their argument will be evident and can be exploited. If the law is faulty and allows for an injustice to slip through, then you have to fight to change the law.

Ultimately this won't end now, or in the short term at all... it will likely branch out and force a reconsideration of commercial rights, both for the Producers and the customers. Anons actions will likely extend this process rather then shorten it.

 

[-Samurai-]

I hope that one of them screws up and gets caught, and in turn, rats out more of them.

When you mess with the PS3s software, you're not "tinkering with something you own", you're tinkering with something you're leasing. Huge difference.

If I walk into gamestop, walmart, or whatever and shell out the cash for a PS3 system it and everything it contains is now mine and mine to do what I want with. You cannot tell me I'm "leasing" something that I just paid for in full and can't access it as much as I want in whatever manner that I want.

That said: I don't even care about piracy on consoles; its just the point that I made above that gets me riled up concerning this topic.

That paperwork in the PS3 box, the one that contains the EULA and ToS, yeah, those say that you don't own the software and you can't use them how you wish. And you agree to that when you use the system. By using the PS3, you agree that you don't own the rights to the software.

It's really that simple.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Anonymous is basically invincible.

So yeah.

So what ? Sure people cant catch all of them but here is the thing, they cant do jack shit.
Oh noes DDoSing a site, the horror. They like to think they make a difference, but they waste more of their time, acomplishing nothing, I find it funny and sad. Sony wont care, they wont be effected, but anon can atleast pretend they are important, thdy are nothing irl, and a pest on the interenet. Aside from knocking site down for about 2 days, they havent done anything.

I am getting tired of hearing about them.

Same.

They're just a bunch of kids and basement dwellers. They need to get a life and stop pretending that they're some kind of freedom fighters.

Anyone see that interview on BBC with 'Coldblood' or whatever (post mastercard DDOS)? He was a teenager who could hardly articulate or construct a sentence. It was sad and pathetic.

That is what anonymous is really like Escapist.

 

[Shycte]

snip

snip

snip

snip

Okay, let's break this down. Is the problem that he is not allowed to do whatever he want with a console that he bought? Note, he does still not own the software that runs it. If yes, why is that a problem?

The problem is really that, people purchase a system with an understanding that they own it. I agree, they cannot "own" (in the property rights sense of the word) the software. They lease it, I am fine with this. The actual issue is that Sony seems to reserve the right to block or remove features from the system at their own behest. Such as, I buy a system and if I don't update it, I cannot play new games. I only want to play games on it, but I'm not allowed unless I update. Furthermore, say I want to play against friends on an older game, I'm not allowed to because I didn't update my system, perhaps because I don't agree with the newest EULA. They have blocked a feature that I bought the system for. This is a problem. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their head around. I buy something for no other purpose than to play video games with my friends. They have the right to prevent me from doing that, despite the fact that it's the reason they made and I bought the system?

I can understand that you are mad about that, and it's a shame that it is like that. But is it a problem that this hacker who tampred with the software and put it out on the internet is being sued?

 

[zehydra]

Permalink

Throwing a tantrum will sure teach them.

I mean, we could just get people to boycott the products and services. Let supply and demand do the "dirty work." But we're afraid that not enough people are bothered by this. So, instead, Anonymous gets louder and pretends it represents the majority interest.

And all they're going to do is make a harder road for those of us that would rather initiate dialogue with Sony to make changes. It'll be impossible to talk the issue out anymore, because they'll have clear reason to say, "This is why we don't 'negotiate' with hackers." Because we're so anxious to prove them right, they never have to admit they're wrong.

what's even more interesting is that when it says that "Anonymous" is planning on doing something, it's actually a few people claiming to represent anonymous.

 

[Ian Caronia]

Unlike Scientology, which I see as clearly evil, Sony is just being dickish here. Not evil, but completely bastard-like. I can see Anon doing what it does for the reason it does it, but...
Aw hell it's not up to me, is it? Sony does need to be made an example of, and it is a shame it won't be done in the courts, but all the illegal/legal manipulation between acts Anon and Sony respectively just doesn't bode well to me.

Listen, Anon, can you wait until Catherine and Skyrim are out? Do whatever you want after that since I won't care too much (still watch from behind news articles), but please just don't do anything to impede me getting my sexy creepy blonds and bare-hand dragon killing, ay? Thanks, mate.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

Okay, let's break this down. Is the problem that he is not allowed to do whatever he want with a console that he bought? Note, he does still not own the software that runs it. If yes, why is that a problem?

The problem is really that, people purchase a system with an understanding that they own it. I agree, they cannot "own" (in the property rights sense of the word) the software. They lease it, I am fine with this. The actual issue is that Sony seems to reserve the right to block or remove features from the system at their own behest. Such as, I buy a system and if I don't update it, I cannot play new games. I only want to play games on it, but I'm not allowed unless I update. Furthermore, say I want to play against friends on an older game, I'm not allowed to because I didn't update my system, perhaps because I don't agree with the newest EULA. They have blocked a feature that I bought the system for. This is a problem. Why is this so hard for people to wrap their head around. I buy something for no other purpose than to play video games with my friends. They have the right to prevent me from doing that, despite the fact that it's the reason they made and I bought the system?

They don't lease it, they license it. A lease and a license are not the same thing. And I, for one, don't buy a console with any understanding that I own the software. I read the EULA which makes clear to me that I don't.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Like I said, I'm not relying on the retailer to refund my purchase price. I'm throwing that shit right back at them, going home, and blocking the charge on my credit card. I don't have their product any more. I gave it back to them. I damn sure ain't paying them for it.

They will take you to court, say you bought it, had the right to throw it in the trash if you wanted (which is what would probably happen to it), and say that you owe them the cost of what you bought. You would lose that fight, no matter how right you are, because you bought it from a retailer that you knew the return policy of. They didn't sell you it, then make you sign something saying you aren't allowed to return it. You knew when you bought it, that if you were dissatisfied with it after opening it, you weren't allowed to return it. You would be out a PS3 and $300 at that point.

 

[Echo136]

As long as whatever they do doesnt affect my trophy count I'm fine with it. They are pretty much wasting their time DDoSing a website, as itll have little to no effect on the court case

I don't even think the lawyers for Sony will even give a shit about their client's website going down. Hell, the only way they will give a damn is if it gives them more to use against Geohot. This could get interesting now.


Captcha: Wang, vicedst? I'm not into S&M but that sounds well, not what I don't want.

At this point Im a little scared at what Anon might actually do. They've hacked sites and given out account info before. It could happen again. Although, it would be contrary to the message that they are trying to send to Sony, I suppose, because then Anon would just become hated by Playstation users, instead of loved.

 

[creager91]

This is really the most ridiculous argument Ive ever hear. The "I bought it legally so I can do what I want with it" argument is extremely shallow thinking. I buy a knife legally, does that mean I'm allowed to stab people in my own home cuz I bought that too so its mine and had my own set of rules completely separate from the rest of world right?

Seriously, your the one tampering with legally protected hardware, use the shit as its meant to be used or pay the consequences. I hope these hackers get the full force of the law, people like Geohot or whatever the hell his name is are the kind of arrogant bastards that think they can get away with anything and are the ones that help ruin things for everyone.

What do these people think will come of this if they win? Hackers will run rampant and gaming companies will end up going out of business because they cant compete with the hackers who would then have no legal restrictions such as sony has and the hackers dont have to worry as much about making money or employing thousands of people

Get your head out of your ass and think about the bigger picture hackers! Its not an issue of you doing it to your own system and then not playing online Im ok with that that doesnt harm anyone, its when you harm a companies profits that it becomes illegal, thats stealing and company ruining behavior. the world doesnt revolve around you or your defense mechanisms which in this case seem to be classic justification and regression.

Rant over

Because hacking a console is clearly equivalent to murdering someone with a knife, and not, say, making a nice sheath for it. Right.

More so than making a sheath for it considering both are illegal

But it's not illegal, simply in violation of a contract that is itself of questionable legality; what Geohot did was find out how to modify the software. Making a sheath for a knife has a lot more in common with that than stabbing someone with a knife does. Stabbing would be an accurate comparison if, say, someone found a way to violate the anti-nuclear weapons clause in the iTunes EULA. If you don't know what I'm talking about, there's actually a clause in the iTunes EULA that says you can't use the software to make nuclear weapons. How one would do that, I have no idea, but it is in the document.

The point is that there IS a contract for it which if you violate a contract thats illegal. You sign the contract when you purchase their system and go online, he "violated" the contract and that means he should deal with the consequences.

Im not saying he should be "punished" per say just that he should compensate Sony for their losses occurred which in this case seem to be reputation/legal fees/whatever else that I'm sure they kept track of. To "punish" Geohot would be to make him pay more than that of which he is responsible for.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-contract/ in case you were wondering about a breach of contract law

 

[infinity_turtles]

I disagree with the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to mod their products because they might use it for piracy. That's like saying we shouldn't sell people knives because they might cut others.

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...

Where that analogy fails is that there is nothing in the Ford that is copyrighted or licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. The Ford is yours free and clear (assuming you have title to it). Do with it whatever you want assuming that you're not somehow running afoul of some law somewhere (like removing the headlights and driving it in the middle of the night). The software in the PS3, unlike your Ford analogy, is copyrighted and merely licensed to you for use with the understanding that you can't modify it. You're comparing an apple to an orange.

I agree with you, car comparisons are pointless. Lets compare this to another piece of intellectual property that tends to fall under licensing and copyright. Music. What has happened is the equivalent of someone remixing a song, releasing a program that can modify the original song into the remix version(not releasing the remix itself, since you have to have a PS3 to jailbreak it), and then explaining their method of pulling individual track layers and what they specifically changed for their remix. And they of course exported it into a different sort of soundfile than it came as, to give it expanded functionality.

I don't think anyone has ever been sued for doing that.

Assuming that the remix program was written by you from scratch, then it's your intellectual property and, yes, I can't see where anyone would have a legal cause of action against you. But those facts aren't analogous to the case of Sony and its PS3. The more analogous hypothetical would be the case where the remix program was not written by you from scratch. A much more analogous comparison would be taking Ableton, rewriting or in some other way modifying that program code, and releasing your newly modified version to the public. I'm pretty confident (but will admit to not knowing for sure) that Ableton's software, like Sony's software, is only license for use and that they prohibit modification of their software. And I'd imagine that they, like Sony, wouldn't be too pleased with your efforts to improve on their product.

Oh, I disagree that the comparison you're making fits. In order to jailbreak the PS3, you require a PS3, and thus have to have a copy of the software that will be modified anyway. Your rewritten example fails to account for that. Remixes are sketchy legal territory do to the fact that they're derivative works, like the jailbreak, but they often get upheld in court because of the extent of the modification. The jailbreak modified things to an extensive degree. Combine that with the fact that the jailbreak is not in anyway a disincentive from buying a PS3, since it requires one, and my analogy really does fit rather well.

So basically, in my analogy, the patching program is the set-up file for the jailbreak, the remix is the jailbreak, and the original song is the PS3s OS.

 

[Tohuvabohu]

Anonymous is basically invincible.

So yeah.

So what ? Sure people cant catch all of them but here is the thing, they cant do jack shit.
Oh noes DDoSing a site, the horror. They like to think they make a difference, but they waste more of their time, acomplishing nothing, I find it funny and sad. Sony wont care, they wont be effected, but anon can atleast pretend they are important, thdy are nothing irl, and a pest on the interenet. Aside from knocking site down for about 2 days, they havent done anything.

I am getting tired of hearing about them.

Same.

They're just a bunch of kids and basement dwellers. They need to get a life and stop pretending that they're some kind of freedom fighters.

Anyone see that interview on BBC with 'Coldblood' or whatever (post mastercard DDOS)? He was a teenager who could hardly articulate or construct a sentence. It was sad and pathetic.

That is what anonymous is really like Escapist.

Yes, the very same people who mass leaked the personal contact information of Rebecca Black and Nikki Catsouras' family so the internet can terrorize and harass them is now accusing Sony of invading the privacy of their customers.

But it seems like no amount of hypocrisy is going to stop Anonymous from behaving like dipshits and making the situation worse for everyone, if they follow through with their limp threat.