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

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.

The contract is signed by purchase of the system and by the connecting to internet play. As I said I would have no issue if they didnt go online, granted this would be excluded of gray area if it was microsoft where you have to pay to play online anyway. and in the U.S ignorance of the law does not allow one to break it.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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."

That is your debate point here? I'm a lawyer, fuck you? Wow.

They have a transaction history of you buying something that you are not allowed to return. And they don't have it because they held onto it for a week, then threw it in the trash after you refused to come pick up the item you bought from them, even though you knew this was going to happen for two reasons. 1.)They do not accept returns of opened products, and you knew this going in, and 2.)They cannot sell an opened product that contains an identification number that may be identified with you. And when you lose that fight, which I am relatively sure you would lose, you will have to pay for the system, and then court costs, and you still don't have a console. And while you can spell "unjust enrichment", I doubt you could claim it. No matter how good of an attorney you may be in this case. They did nothing at all that you can claim as them misleading you on the product you chose not to keep, they didn't take advantage of you to enrich themselves at your cost, and ultimately you threw away the system that you didn't want, which is well within your rights. I'm no attorney (as if you couldn't tell), but I would still level the playing field on their side.

 

[Shycte]

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.

As the courts are concerned? I thought this whole thing was about the court deciding if he did anything illegal, am I slow in the news or are you reading the future my friend?

 

[Cairo]

Legality is what it is, and I'm inclined to side with Anon, especially as someone who has (in an unrelated way) been victimized by Sony's policy.

 

[Icehearted]

legally purchased and should be able to do with as they pleased

I agree entirely. Sony's approach (as with others) isn't far removed from gun control. If a person murders with a firearm do we not tend to find going after gun makers to be misguided? Just because a person hacks their system doesn't mean they're looking to pirate everything in sight. If it were allowed (and this is the problem) I'd hack my own PS3 so I could run Linux on it and have a sort of basic htpc with web browsing. Even though I paid for the hardware, I do not own a thing according to Sony. This is probably the only industry tat does that, and people accept it because they have no choice. Absolute power does that.

 

[Skops]

I really don't think Anon is in the right here.. you break an agreement to NOT mod the hardware you purchase, yeah, Sony has the right to haul yo ass into court regardless of what your intentions are.

As someone previously said, Sony isn't abusing the legal system, They're just using it!

 

[esperandote]

I wondered when they were going to step in in this. I also wonder if Geohotz is part of anonymous, maybe not, they would have steped in sooner, or they didn't so we didn't notice he is.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Anonymous seems to like hacking sites cause it's illegal but they can. Sony is big and makes a juicy target to bring down.

That's my best guess as to why this is happening.

Let's see how this will all turn out; Anonymous is famous for following through with their plans.

But we all know, the shining moment for Anon was 'I have over 9000 sins.'

But, Anonymous is prving to be a vigilante in some rights, well in my opinion. But if they follow through with this threat, the results could be devastating.

 

[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.

As the courts are concerned? I thought this whole thing was about the court deciding if he did anything illegal, am I slow in the news or are you reading the future my friend?

Lol, that's what I said. The case is them deciding whether he broke the law. Everyone is convinced he already did, but no one here is a judge. Sony wants to convince everyone he broke the law, he is trying to convince everyone otherwise. It's utterly fascinating actually.

 

[ArMartinez02]

It was bound to happen, lets see if Sony's top security personel can take on Anon.

 

[JDKJ]

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.

EULAs, like many of forms of contracts, don't require signatures. Ninety-nine percent of them are either require "clicking through" or they imply consent to their terms by use of the software. Both forms of consent (i.e., clicking through and implied consent) are generally legal forms of acceptance. And, while not an entirely well-settled area of law, EULAs don't often get thrown out in court as you claim they do. They're more likely -- or, at least, just as likely -- to be upheld than they aren't.

 

[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.

The contract is signed by purchase of the system and by the connecting to internet play. As I said I would have no issue if they didnt go online, granted this would be excluded of gray area if it was microsoft where you have to pay to play online anyway. and in the U.S ignorance of the law does not allow one to break it.

Where the heck are you buying systems that they actually make you sign the EULA at the point of purchase? It doesn't happen, and the whole signing up to play online thing is a seperate contract, which has nothing to do with your access to the hardware; the worst they can do is ban you from online play. I mean, if you violate the ToS here at the escapist, do you think they should legally be able to take your computer and send a team of lawyers to sue you for all you're worth? Or do you think that they have the right to ban you from their little walled garden, but not do anything beyond the bounds of that?

 

[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

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.

The contract is signed by purchase of the system and by the connecting to internet play. As I said I would have no issue if they didnt go online, granted this would be excluded of gray area if it was microsoft where you have to pay to play online anyway. and in the U.S ignorance of the law does not allow one to break it.

Where the heck are you buying systems that they actually make you sign the EULA at the point of purchase? It doesn't happen, and the whole signing up to play online thing is a seperate contract, which has nothing to do with your access to the hardware; the worst they can do is ban you from online play. I mean, if you violate the ToS here at the escapist, do you think they should legally be able to take your computer and send a team of lawyers to sue you for all you're worth? Or do you think that they have the right to ban you from their little walled garden, but not do anything beyond the bounds of that?

The purchase IS the signature, you buy their product youre agreeing to their terms. but Im not getting into an internet argument so im just going to stop responding to any quotes that argue, as I stated orginally, my opnion

 

[BRex21]

I?m sorry, but Anonymous is just wrong in this case. Sony is not suing for some innocent tinkering of the physical components of their PS3 machine, which you do own. They?re suing for modifications to the software which you DO NOT own. Software companies do not sell copies of their software and say, ?Do whatever you want with it!? Why? Because then competitors can get a nice look under the hood. Software applications that are sold come with the condition that you do not have access to, nor will you tamper with the source code (unless the source code is what is actually being sold). Selling source code is akin to selling your company. Sony wouldn?t sell it for $300. It would sell it for millions. So yeah, someone hacking the machine to get to this source code is illegal.

I support Anonymous in their stance on Net neutrality, but this just seems a case of the group just wanting to be David to Sony?s Goliath. Think of it this way ? would you really be against Sony in this case if it were some indie developer? Something like this would destroy them as a company. People pile on because it?s Sony ? the idea that they have no shortfall of money somehow makes it seem okay. All that is, is people rationalizing illegal and immoral activities. They want to make it okay in their own minds.

Wake up. The actions matter, not the target.

You say the actions matter not the target, if the actions were "how to remove hardware that stops piracy" instead of software would you be okay with it? Because you said tinkering was okay, but only if its hardware.
GeoHotz didnt SELL the root key, he posted it and said, here is how you can mod your PS3 software and even if it is legal to tell someone how to mod their ps3, hardware or software, it is still illegal to go violate someone copyright and rip off thier product, those are completely differnt issues and even if they said "do whatever you want with it" they could very easily AND LEGALLY turn around and say no you cant resell our product.
Also Indie developers do have to contend with piracy, do you think no one has ever made a pirate copy of minecraft?
Im not a fan of Anonymous,and them hacking Sony serves little purpose other than petty vengence, but im even less of a fan of Sony and their handling of this case has corssed a few lines in terms of legality and i think we really do need to fight to make companies more accountable.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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."

That is your debate point here? I'm a lawyer, fuck you? Wow.

They have a transaction history of you buying something that you are not allowed to return. And they don't have it because they held onto it for a week, then threw it in the trash after you refused to come pick up the item you bought from them, even though you knew this was going to happen for two reasons. 1.)They do not accept returns of opened products, and you knew this going in, and 2.)They cannot sell an opened product that contains an identification number that may be identified with you. And when you lose that fight, which I am relatively sure you would lose, you will have to pay for the system, and then court costs, and you still don't have a console. And while you can spell "unjust enrichment", I doubt you could claim it. No matter how good of an attorney you may be in this case. They did nothing at all that you can claim as them misleading you on the product you chose not to keep, they didn't take advantage of you to enrich themselves at your cost, and ultimately you threw away the system that you didn't want, which is well within your rights. I'm no attorney (as if you couldn't tell), but I would still level the playing field on their side.

No. My point is that the possibility of a bogus-ass lawsuit being brought against me by a retailer -- a point you raised -- matters not a whit to me. I've got little to no costs associated with defending myself -- and quite ably so, I think -- against a retailer operating under the thoroughly mistaken assumption that they can force payment from me for a product for which I have neither use nor enjoyment because I gave that shit back to them.

And if they chose to throw any their product once I returned it to them, that's on them. They had the option to sell it as an unboxed item. I may be willing to cover the difference between the price of a boxed item sale versus an unboxed item sale, but that's the best they're get outta me.

 

[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.

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.

Were the root keys not leaked by someone within Sony? He didn't magically figure them out. That information was made public before he got his hands on them. And, he did not reverse engineer their software at all. He only allowed the inclusion of installed packages based off the root keys that were made public knowledge beforehand.

Also, I misspoke before, you are quite correct in that a lease and a license are different things. My apologies on that.

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.

Also, I am not sure how on base this is, but if he is correct, the EULA went against established law by prohibiting this. No contract can make illegal things legal, and vice versa.

 

[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.

EULAs, like many of forms of contracts, don't require signatures. Ninety-nine percent of them are either require "clicking through" or they imply consent to their terms by use of the software. Both forms of consent (i.e., clicking through and implied consent) are generally legal forms of acceptance. And, while not an entirely well-settled area of law, EULAs don't often get thrown out in court as you claim they do. They're more likely -- or, at least, just as likely -- to be upheld than they aren't.

But most EULAs are buried on a slip of paper that you can't read until after you've already made the purchase; surely it has to be made clear at the time of purchase that the EULA is a part of the contract of sale? Because otherwise, they're changing the contract after its already been agreed upon, which isn't kosher. I know that EULAs get held up as often as they get thrown out in the US, but that's just the thing; the case law is highly inconsistent on the matter, and it hasn't been decided yet whether or not it's definitely legal. Further, most of the cases involve corporate software, in which the EULA really is a part of the contract of sale, and has to be agreed to upon purchase, rather than installation -- games bought through Steam, XBLA, or the PSN are other examples of software in which the EULA is part of the contract of sale. Boxed games and consoles, however, are not.

 

[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.

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.

But then you're just being ignorant of your own bias. You posit that what *YOU* believe is right or wrong is the only thing that matters. That's exactly the same position that Anonymous takes.

There were *MANY* other things that Anonymous could have done to the WBC, just like there are *MANY* other things that Anonymous could do to Sony. Why is it OK for Anonymous to hack the WBC websites, but not OK for them to hack Sony's websites?

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Who among the donaters has been targeted? Anyone? I haven't seen any of it.

Sony has an interest in knowing who is contributing money to this, and they have a right to know. Why? Because everyone has a right to know who's suing them. And in a civil case, both sides have a right to know who's on the other side. Sony is most likely investigating the possibility that a competitor is secretly funding this case to cause problems for Sony. And if they find that's not the case there is absolutely nothing else they can do with that information. At this point, any assignment of malicious intent is just assumption, which isn't fair to use on either side.