Sony Hacker Lawsuits Earn the Wrath of Anonymous [UPDATED]

[RvLeshrac]

*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

You've just outlined my argument, and highlighted all the relevant points.

You can't say that the law is only valid when you agree with it. That's not how society works.

You can either say that everything is subjective, and that Anon *may* have a good, valid point here *just like they did with WBC*, or you can say that they are objectively wrong in both cases because they're violating exactly the same law.

And no, Anon hacking their own PS3s collectively wouldn't do anything, unless they networked their PS3s into a DDoSing platform. Sony doesn't have a PS3 hive-mind that immediately detects and tallies the numbers of hacked PS3s.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Oh Anon, may you never stop not having anything better to do.

This line of thinking is wrong. It's not that they don't have anything better to do, what they are doing is worthwhile and comes down to the very rights guaranteed by the US constitution, that is the right to own property. They are making the argument you do not own the property you bought from them, they in fact own it and can dictate how you are or are not allowed to use it.

You might own the console itself, but you do not own the software that runs it and you are not free to do whatever you want with it. It's not that easy. No one is denying him the right to his property, they are denying him the right to fuck with theirs.

I'm pretty sure the law only protects software insofar as the hackers cannot copy it wholesale, but any third-party software that emulates the function of the first-party software is not in violation of those rights. The legal precedent was set in 1992 in the case of Sega Enterprises Ltd vs Accolade, Inc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade], which states that reverse-engineering software falls under Fair Use. I don't know if that precedent has changed in the past nineteen years, so I could be wrong, anyway.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

And, of course, in a true democracy, a representative democracy, or a republic, if the person that is supposedly representing us goes rogue, we have ways to hold them accountable for not properly representing our interests. We can vote them out, we can put them on trial, or at least we can contact them directly to tell them what changes need to be made.

When a small group is allowed to speak for the masses and impose its own view of what's "best" for everyone, with no responsibility or accountability to the group they claim to represent, we call that an "oligarchy," which is a form of dictatorship.

Really note this well: I certainly agree that some changes in history have been made by groups acting outside the law. I understand that these sorts of groups wouldn't work the same way if they were accountable to the laws they were fighting against. That's not my biggest issue. My biggest issue is that Anonymous isn't accountable to the people they claim to represent.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Fine. Take me to court. I'm an attorney and it won't cost me a dime to defend myself. And if they think that they can force payment from me for a product I don't possess and which is in their possession, I'll mop the courtroom floor with them. I can spell "unjust enrichment."

 

[dingles]

I say Sony's in the right here. Sure you're allowed to tinker with the hardware you purchased, but once you start posting company secrets (the root code), you've unambiguously enabled piracy and have affected the livelihood of a hell of a lot of people. I draw the line there and I'm glad Sony does too. Besides, he's legally in the wrong too. He signed the terms of service, and like it or not that's legally binding. You know Hotz knows he's wrong when his case is based around Sony being out of jurisdiction.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

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.

Not quite. Sony can copyright and limit the use of their software all they want, but they may not do the same to the hardware. Every user may freely remove the software and add their own (by removal I do mean completely 100% Sony software free), but connecting to PSN is obviously not guaranteed, and indeed Sony may outright deny it. It's a bit like jailbreaking your favorite Apple toy, because you do not like their own software. Furthermore, the PS3 was sold for a long time under the promise that users could install Linux under the "Other OS" option. It could very well be argued that hacking a PS3 is simply operating under the initial agreement.

Captcha: eAdet rrele. Could we please go back to using real words? I find this garbled mess of letters quite annoying.

Yes, they make no claim of ownership whatsoever to the hardware. But we can't say that and then go on to say what we can or can't do with the software that they do claim to own. That makes no sense, not even in English much less law. The hardware isn't at issue, the software is.

And you can argue whatever you want but that alone doesn't make it a winning argument. If you read the EULA that came with the PS3 that had the OtherOS feature, I'm sure you'll see where it says that Sony can modify post-sale the PS3 software in nany they choose and that it also say you can't modify their software in any way you may choose. As jacked up as it is to the consumer, they did reserve the right to remove features from their software after you've bought their console and they did reserve the right to prohibit you from modifying their software so as to replace a removed feature.

I'm saying that any user may freely remove Sony's software from the hardware and replace it with their own. The legality of that is never in question, provided that the new device is not offered for sale.

Also, the EULA is NOT established as binding legal document in the US, much less a contract. They can put whatever garbage they want in it, and it wouldn't matter. As it stands, modification of a device's capability post-sale by the manufacturer is a violation of consumer law, at least in the EU. Not sure about the US, but I would imagine it being similar.

 

[LogicNProportion]

"Don't you dare complain about your software being hacked or we'll hack your website" -- Anonymous

"Courts? We don't need no stinking courts! We'll be the judge and executioner." -- Anonymous

I discredit these quotes as no self-respecting Anon or /b/tard or fa/tg/uy or anyone associated with The Final Boss of the Internet would ever use 'stinking' as an adjective.

On subject, as always, I'm rooting for Anon. I don't care if Sony isn't actually abusing the court, it doesn't make those in rule of the court's systems right. While I agree that something does indeed seem...off...on this Anonattack...I gotta go with the side that does it for the lulz.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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?

I'm not really mad about it at all. I'm just making a point. The problem is that he didn't change the software, and he didn't enable piracy, he simply made it so you could install additional software onto the system, which at the time wasn't against the EULA. Then, after the fact, they basically hold the right of force against you if you want to keep using the thing you payed them hundreds of dollars for. I don't have a problem with people who pirate software getting sued by Sony and other parties involved. Additionally, I don't have a problem with people who engage in crimes of any sort getting sued. But, as the courts are concerned, no one did anything illegal yet.

 

[beeejay]

Wow this is one of those cases where no-one is the good guy in any way.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

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.

A) The Romans weren't bothered when Augustus ceased power and created the imperial line. But it probably wasn't in their best interest given what followed afterward, (e.g. Nero, Caligula, etc.)

B) You think that you can talk to Sony? You're nuts. The people who are vocal are such a minority that they'll never get anything done. It's sad but true. You'd actually be better off petitioning your congressman about passing laws that makes that kind of crap illegal. That at least would be slightly less than a complete waste of your time. But I can tell you that there won't be any dialogue with Sony.

Large multinational conglomerates generally don't listen to the little guy. This is ESPECIALLY true of Japanese companies. Hell, their government will let them wipe out all the wildlife in the sea, despite all sorts of international sanctions. Do you really think they give a crap about whether a few people complain about their hardware.

Whether or not you like Anonymous, I will tell you that whatever they do will probably be more effective than anything you could hope to accomplish through a dialogue.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

Not quite. Sony can copyright and limit the use of their software all they want, but they may not do the same to the hardware. Every user may freely remove the software and add their own (by removal I do mean completely 100% Sony software free), but connecting to PSN is obviously not guaranteed, and indeed Sony may outright deny it. It's a bit like jailbreaking your favorite Apple toy, because you do not like their own software. Furthermore, the PS3 was sold for a long time under the promise that users could install Linux under the "Other OS" option. It could very well be argued that hacking a PS3 is simply operating under the initial agreement.

Captcha: eAdet rrele. Could we please go back to using real words? I find this garbled mess of letters quite annoying.

Yes, they make no claim of ownership whatsoever to the hardware. But we can't say that and then go on to say what we can or can't do with the software that they do claim to own. That makes no sense, not even in English much less law. The hardware isn't at issue, the software is.

And you can argue whatever you want but that alone doesn't make it a winning argument. If you read the EULA that came with the PS3 that had the OtherOS feature, I'm sure you'll see where it says that Sony can modify post-sale the PS3 software in nany they choose and that it also say you can't modify their software in any way you may choose. As jacked up as it is to the consumer, they did reserve the right to remove features from their software after you've bought their console and they did reserve the right to prohibit you from modifying their software so as to replace a removed feature.

I'm saying that any user may freely remove Sony's software from the hardware and replace it with their own. The legality of that is never in question, provided that the new device is not offered for sale.

Also, the EULA is NOT established as binding legal document in the US, much less a contract. They can put whatever garbage they want in it, and it wouldn't matter. As it stands, modification of a device's capability post-sale by the manufacturer is a violation of consumer law, at least in the EU. Not sure about the US, but I would imagine it being similar.

There are countless court decisions upholding the legailty of EULAs. There are, I'll admit, a fair amount of decisions refusing to uphold the legality of particular terms of a EULA (e.g., forum selection clauses). But even in those cases, the EULA is never stricken in its entirety. Rather, the particular term is stricken. The entire contract isn't reformed. There's a principle in American law that disfavors reformation of a contract in its entirety and favors reformation of only those parts of a contract found unenforceable.

 

[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.

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

You'd be right, if the contract was actually signed at purchase. The legal gray area here is that you don't sign it at purchase; the contract of sale here is "I give you money, you give me the product, it's mine." The EULA is an illegal attempt to add stipulations to a contract that has already been agreed upon, which is why they never hold up outside the US, and even in the US, where the law is pretty much written by big business, they often get thrown out. There is such a thing as an invalid or unconscionable contract, and such a contract cannot legally be enforced.

 

[Illyasviel]

When you're a child and have a hammer everything looks like your grandmother's favourite coffee table.

Which is pretty much a fancy way of saying Anon justs wants to smash things.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

There are countless court decisions upholding the legailty of EULAs. There are, I'll admit, a fair amount of decisions refusing to uphold the legality of particular terms of a EULA (e.g., forum selection clauses). But even in those cases, the EULA is never stricken in its entirety. Rather, the particular term is stricken. The entire contract isn't reformed. There's a principle in American law that disfavors reformation of a contract in its entirety and favors reformation of only those parts of a contract found unenforceable.

Ah, guess I was wrong about that. Thanks for the correction!

 

[rickynumber24]

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.

It's worth noting that, when someone figured out how to decrypt a DVD and then published the code, they got sued in exactly the same manner as Mr. Hotz is being sued. (For extra fun if you go look up DeCSS, you'll discover there are at least three completely different possible implementations that all work equally well, as it turns out...) That suit ended up failing on grounds of freedom of speech, especially after people did things like describe it in a song or put it on a T-shirt, just to make a point. (Sort of like tweeting the root key for this story...)

It's also worth noting that, while EULAs are generally legally binding, it's currently still a grey area, but if some people get their way, laws will be passed in all the states making them actually binding, and they are a far rawer deal than traditional consumer laws. In the worst-case scenario, you really would have to sign a EULA to drive your car, because you have to sign that EULA before you can use the motor controller... and, because it circumvents stuff like first sale doctrine, that agreement might (and probably would actually say things like, "You are not allowed to tinker with your car unless so licensed by the manufacturer."

EDIT: To clarify, JDKJ is more or less right: generally, only unreasonable terms, of a particular kind of unreasonable I will admit not to being familiar with, as I am not a lawyer, get struck down. What I'm saying is that, for the past many years (hopefully, they've run out of steam...) some companies have been lobbying state legislatures (because you can't do this federally, as it happens) to make it so that any EULA on a piece of software is binding.

EDIT2: This: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act
... although Wikipedia relatively diplomatic about how bad it is, merely saying it is "controversial" and "opposed by a number of consumer groups and the Attorneys General of many states". Thankfully, it seems they have ... more or less ... given up.

 

[Echo136]

snip

Your trying to argue law with someone who's actually been to law school. I dont think its going to work in your favor.

 

[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

You've just outlined my argument, and highlighted all the relevant points.

You can't say that the law is only valid when you agree with it. That's not how society works.

You can either say that everything is subjective, and that Anon *may* have a good, valid point here *just like they did with WBC*, or you can say that they are objectively wrong in both cases because they're violating exactly the same law.

And no, Anon hacking their own PS3s collectively wouldn't do anything, unless they networked their PS3s into a DDoSing platform. Sony doesn't have a PS3 hive-mind that immediately detects and tallies the numbers of hacked PS3s.

Didn't say they did have a PS3 hive mind, but I'm, talking just a stand up type deal. Did the woman during the feminist revolution burning their bras actually do something harmful to men? No, it was a demonstration. You can acheive the same demonstration by flooding youtube or something with videos of people hacking their PS3

And now, I believe you are ignoring my point good Sir. You are equating good and evil with legal and illegal. I said that your argument was valid. Yes, the law always stands. Both thieves should be punished equally (unless one of them committed their theft in a more heinous way). Assuming both thefts were performed the same way, they should both be punished equally. You. Are. Right. I have said it multiple times. Fair? Lets move on now.

Now as a human being with thoughts, emotions, feelings. I have the RIGHT to say I feel differently about them. Maybe one thief was my friend and I feel more lenient to him? Maybe one of the people who was robbed was an open racist who beat up homosexual men... Maybe there is some other, odd factor or maybe I just don't like Bob's fucking face. I will agree that both should be punished the VERY SAME. But I have the right to feel differently about them, and maybe even say someone was in the right.

Stealing is an odd example to use here, because it is FAR less of a grey area. Hacking was a fine example on it's own. Anon has hacked two people. I feel one person deserved it, one person didn't. I'm well within my right.

 

[Imper1um]

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."

See, the problem is, Sony had the ability to "negotiate" in the first place, by just dealing with GeoHot. I bet if GH was the only target, Anon wouldn't have even tried anything. However, Anon abused the US Legal system to subpoena the private records of who donated to GeoHot's Legal Counsel, in an effort to find out everyone who dared oppose them. Sony's actions remind me of Witch hunts in the Dark Ages, or a oppressive dictator, ruthlessly looking for his opposers to eliminate them on sight.

Anonymous isn't just doing this because they feel that they need to smash some windows. It's all about force. See, Sony had the opportunity to forgive and forget. They could have just released a patch or something to fix the issue, or even simply went after GeoHot. It was the action that they went on a witch hunt that sparked Anonymous' interest and attention.

It's obvious that all of these "non-violent protests" of online petitions, forum posts and other things, are not getting things done. Anonymous realizes that these large corporations holding billions of dollars do not care about anything except seeing their spreadsheets grow, so Anonymous makes them pay attention by making their Spreadsheets shrink. Change happens because of such action and everyone benefits.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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?

I'm not really mad about it at all. I'm just making a point. The problem is that he didn't change the software, and he didn't enable piracy, he simply made it so you could install additional software onto the system, which at the time wasn't against the EULA. Then, after the fact, they basically hold the right of force against you if you want to keep using the thing you payed them hundreds of dollars for. I don't have a problem with people who pirate software getting sued by Sony and other parties involved. Additionally, I don't have a problem with people who engage in crimes of any sort getting sued. But, as the courts are concerned, no one did anything illegal yet.

He did reverse engineer and modify the software and he did do so in contravention of the EULA terms in force at the time (which expressly prohibit any and all reverse engineering and modifications). And his modification allows for bypassing the hypervisor (that's precisely what his root key does) which in turn allows for bypassing the access control mechanism which in turn allows for the playing of pirated games. And then he posted his root key and other related information to the internet, enabling others to do the same.