Sony Wins Restraining Order Against Geohot

[JDKJ]

Who said the military gives a rat's ass that Sony removed OSOther and will therefore seek to recoup a cent in damages from Sony? I've never heard them complain. Have you?

I have. Google is your friend, and since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm done with you.

Your failure to provide a link to the results of your friendship with Google doesn't leave me convinced that what you're talking about isn't made out of thin air.

And I may not be the math genius you are, but I'm not seeing where 2,000 PS3s that the U.S. Air Force owns can be worth "thousands to millions" in damages. My most generous calculation ($600 launch price times 2,000) leaves me more than a few thousand short of a million. Besides, what's the damage? They still run Linux with them. They just can't connect them to PSN or have them automatically update themselves, neither of which they want to do, anyway.

 

[midpipps]

Well because of all this security thing and just how Sony has handled it, I will never buy another Sony product.
Not because I am going to pirate anything but just because they are willing to put a man in jail over one of the most irritating laws created in history. How they have handled this has been atrocious as they could have hired this man and how they are contemplating using key codes.
I say no
I will not support a company that bullies other people for their security problems. Along with this, taking away the linux feature and web browser is really shitty.
People say Microsoft is greedy and they maybe right, but at least they haven't taken away significant features like Sony have.

Wait when did they take away the web browser?

*turns on ps3 fires up web browser starts talking to console
me:did you know you are not supposed to have a web browser?
PS3:Really who would say that I am here and working fine.
me:Oh I guess it is just another case of the internet being wrong.

All you had to say is sorry you might want to check your facts, no need to be a dick about it. Just a simple edit will clear my facts up

Sorry Man I was already a little worked up arguing about a program with a colleague so if I offended you or anything I truly am sorry I guess I was just not in the best mood to write that reply and probably shouldn't have done so when I was already a little peeved.

 

[JDKJ]

Was Sony willing to refund the money of customers who were angry about the lost feature? See, the game industry isn't known for it's willingness to give refunds.

Is there any industry willing to give back money once it's already in their pocket?

If you relied on an advertised feature in purchasing a product and the seller thereafter removes that feature, then you gather up a bunch of other disgruntled purchasers into a class and file a class action against the seller for false advertising, deceptive trade practice, or something of the like. In fact, PS3 purchasers have already filed more than a half dozen class actions against Sony for removal of the OtherOS feature. If it bothers you that much that they removed OtherOS, drag your ass off the couch and go join one of those class action lawsuits.

 

[JDKJ]

Was Sony willing to refund the money of customers who were angry about the lost feature? See, the game industry isn't known for it's willingness to give refunds.

Is there any industry willing to give back money once it's already in their pocket?

If you relied on an advertised feature in purchasing a product and the seller thereafter removes that feature, then you gather up a bunch of other disgruntled purchasers into a class and file a class action against the seller for false advertising, deceptive trade practice, or something of the like. In fact, PS3 purchasers have already filed more than a half dozen class actions against Sony for removal of the OtherOS feature. If it bothers you that much that they removed OtherOS, drag your ass off the couch and go join one of those class action lawsuits.

No need to be insulting.

So Sony isn't WILLING to refund consumers over the loss of OtherOS? I don't see that consumers should feel bad about restoring that functionality themselves then since the chances of getting a refund are slim to none. Class action lawsuits usually benefit the attorneys more than the people in the class.

The "you" in "your ass" was meant in the undifferentiated sense. You shouldn't take it personally or as an insult.

As a mathematical matter, the lead attorneys in class actions usually do walk away with more in their pockets than any single class member has in their pocket. But that doesn't mean that a single class member won't get 100% of what's owed them (assuming they've got a legitimate case) nor is it a good reason to not join the class. Class actions aren't contingent. The attorneys gets their fees from the losing party. It's not costing the class anything in attorney fees.

And go ahead and hack your PS3 if you want to and don't feel bad about doing so. That's your choice. But if Sony's attorneys crawl up your ass and lay eggs in your intestines, don't feel bad about that, either. That's their choice. And, once again, I don't mean "you" in a personal sense. It's the universal "you" sense.

 

[JDKJ]

Was Sony willing to refund the money of customers who were angry about the lost feature? See, the game industry isn't known for it's willingness to give refunds.

Is there any industry willing to give back money once it's already in their pocket?

If you relied on an advertised feature in purchasing a product and the seller thereafter removes that feature, then you gather up a bunch of other disgruntled purchasers into a class and file a class action against the seller for false advertising, deceptive trade practice, or something of the like. In fact, PS3 purchasers have already filed more than a half dozen class actions against Sony for removal of the OtherOS feature. If it bothers you that much that they removed OtherOS, drag your ass off the couch and go join one of those class action lawsuits.

No need to be insulting.

So Sony isn't WILLING to refund consumers over the loss of OtherOS? I don't see that consumers should feel bad about restoring that functionality themselves then since the chances of getting a refund are slim to none. Class action lawsuits usually benefit the attorneys more than the people in the class.

The "you" in "your ass" was meant in the undifferentiated sense. You shouldn't take it personally or as an insult.

As a mathematical matter, the lead attorneys in class actions usually do walk away with more in their pockets than any single class member has in their pocket. But that doesn't mean that a single class member won't get 100% of what's owed them (assuming they've got a legitimate case) nor is it a good reason to not join the class. Class actions aren't contingent. The attorneys gets their fees from the losing party. It's not costing the class anything in attorney fees.

And go ahead and hack your PS3 if you want to and don't feel bad about doing so. That's your choice. But if Sony's attorneys crawl up your ass and lay eggs in your intestines, don't feel bad about that, either. That's their choice. And, once again, I don't mean "you" in a personal sense. It's the universal "you" sense.

I still can't get on board with the idea that a person can be sued or criminally charged for modifying their own property.

C'mon, man. We've had this discussion before. You don't own the modifiable parts of a PS3. That's Sony's copyrighted intellectual property which they've only licensed to you with the understanding that you won't modify it. What's hard to get on board about that? Particularly if it's an obvious case where the only useful purpose that the modification can serve is to allow copyright infringement involving pirated games. You think that sort of modification should get a free pass?

 

[vxicepickxv]

Okay, everybody pack it up. The Internet is now evidence in the State of California. All of the Internet. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[FriedRicer]

Was Sony willing to refund the money of customers who were angry about the lost feature? See, the game industry isn't known for it's willingness to give refunds.

Is there any industry willing to give back money once it's already in their pocket?

If you relied on an advertised feature in purchasing a product and the seller thereafter removes that feature, then you gather up a bunch of other disgruntled purchasers into a class and file a class action against the seller for false advertising, deceptive trade practice, or something of the like. In fact, PS3 purchasers have already filed more than a half dozen class actions against Sony for removal of the OtherOS feature. If it bothers you that much that they removed OtherOS, drag your ass off the couch and go join one of those class action lawsuits.

No need to be insulting.

So Sony isn't WILLING to refund consumers over the loss of OtherOS? I don't see that consumers should feel bad about restoring that functionality themselves then since the chances of getting a refund are slim to none. Class action lawsuits usually benefit the attorneys more than the people in the class.

The "you" in "your ass" was meant in the undifferentiated sense. You shouldn't take it personally or as an insult.

As a mathematical matter, the lead attorneys in class actions usually do walk away with more in their pockets than any single class member has in their pocket. But that doesn't mean that a single class member won't get 100% of what's owed them (assuming they've got a legitimate case) nor is it a good reason to not join the class. Class actions aren't contingent. The attorneys gets their fees from the losing party. It's not costing the class anything in attorney fees.

And go ahead and hack your PS3 if you want to and don't feel bad about doing so. That's your choice. But if Sony's attorneys crawl up your ass and lay eggs in your intestines, don't feel bad about that, either. That's their choice. And, once again, I don't mean "you" in a personal sense. It's the universal "you" sense.

I still can't get on board with the idea that a person can be sued or criminally charged for modifying their own property.

C'mon, man. We've had this discussion before. You don't own the modifiable parts of a PS3. That's Sony's copyrighted intellectual property which they've only licensed to you with the understanding that you won't modify it. What's hard to get on board about that? Particularly if it's an obvious case where the only useful purpose that the modification can serve is to allow copyright infringement involving pirated games. You think that sort of modification should get a free pass?

First of all, having the discussion before did nothing to change my mind. Intellectual property is BS and the sooner most people see that, the better.

Furthermore, this falls into the category of "what makes game consoles special"? You can freely modify anything else you buy.

Let's just agree to disagree here because I don't think the game industry is deserving of special protections and you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property<....You think thats wrong to do?

 

[JDKJ]

Was Sony willing to refund the money of customers who were angry about the lost feature? See, the game industry isn't known for it's willingness to give refunds.

Is there any industry willing to give back money once it's already in their pocket?

If you relied on an advertised feature in purchasing a product and the seller thereafter removes that feature, then you gather up a bunch of other disgruntled purchasers into a class and file a class action against the seller for false advertising, deceptive trade practice, or something of the like. In fact, PS3 purchasers have already filed more than a half dozen class actions against Sony for removal of the OtherOS feature. If it bothers you that much that they removed OtherOS, drag your ass off the couch and go join one of those class action lawsuits.

No need to be insulting.

So Sony isn't WILLING to refund consumers over the loss of OtherOS? I don't see that consumers should feel bad about restoring that functionality themselves then since the chances of getting a refund are slim to none. Class action lawsuits usually benefit the attorneys more than the people in the class.

The "you" in "your ass" was meant in the undifferentiated sense. You shouldn't take it personally or as an insult.

As a mathematical matter, the lead attorneys in class actions usually do walk away with more in their pockets than any single class member has in their pocket. But that doesn't mean that a single class member won't get 100% of what's owed them (assuming they've got a legitimate case) nor is it a good reason to not join the class. Class actions aren't contingent. The attorneys gets their fees from the losing party. It's not costing the class anything in attorney fees.

And go ahead and hack your PS3 if you want to and don't feel bad about doing so. That's your choice. But if Sony's attorneys crawl up your ass and lay eggs in your intestines, don't feel bad about that, either. That's their choice. And, once again, I don't mean "you" in a personal sense. It's the universal "you" sense.

I still can't get on board with the idea that a person can be sued or criminally charged for modifying their own property.

C'mon, man. We've had this discussion before. You don't own the modifiable parts of a PS3. That's Sony's copyrighted intellectual property which they've only licensed to you with the understanding that you won't modify it. What's hard to get on board about that? Particularly if it's an obvious case where the only useful purpose that the modification can serve is to allow copyright infringement involving pirated games. You think that sort of modification should get a free pass?

First of all, having the discussion before did nothing to change my mind. Intellectual property is BS and the sooner most people see that, the better.

Furthermore, this falls into the category of "what makes game consoles special"? You can freely modify anything else you buy.

Let's just agree to disagree here because I don't think the game industry is deserving of special protections and you do.

Why are you thinking that only the gaming industry has these restrictions? All owners of copyrighted software license that property on similar terms. Read the EULA that comes with Windows 7 Home Premium. It says:

"SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft reserve all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;
· reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
· use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
· make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;
· publish the software for others to copy;
· rent, lease or lend the software; or
· use the software for commercial software hosting services."

Every industry that's in the business of making intellectual property in the form of software available to the consuming public uses similar terms. It ain't just the gaming industry. It's all industries.

And why is intellectual property BS? And why is it that 90% of the people who think it is are people who never create any intellectual property of their own?

 

[poiuppx]

Good. Take his shit, wreck his life, drain his bank account, and make him a lasting message. You might not be able to get the evils back into Pandora's Box, but you damn well can cap Pandora in the head for opening the damn thing.

 

[The Rockerfly]

Sorry Man I was already a little worked up arguing about a program with a colleague so if I offended you or anything I truly am sorry I guess I was just not in the best mood to write that reply and probably shouldn't have done so when I was already a little peeved.

No worries, everyone has to take out their rage some way. At least you didn't pick some prick who would report you over nothing

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

I dont think Sony dumb enough to think it can stop the signal. They know this is out, and there is no stopping it. I am sure all Sony wants to do is f**k George Hotz, by any way possible, like making him spend all his money on court costs and lawyers, and restricting him in ways like this. He screwed Sony, now Sony is trying to do the same to him, that's all.
PS.
Also, I think this may be a tactic to try to dissuade others from doing the same in the future. So the next guy that hacks the next Sony system, should have to do it anonymously and not be able to boast about it like George Hotz did. Taking away the notoriety element that was obviously fueling the reason to hack the PS3.

Well this hack allows people to pirate games. Games made by companies other than Sony. Why make bad relations with your business partners by just letting a hacker who stupidly put up his name and the code that allows for theft to just slide by?

Yes but, I still think their main objective here, beyond anything else, is hurt Hotz in his wallet. Having a high profile suit against him is gonna cost him a lot to get a good lawyer that can go against the team of lawyers Sony im sure has on their payroll. I think if Sony sees any chance in loosing this they will drop it, especially if they know Hotz has suffered enough monetary loss. Getting sued, I imagine, is not fun or cheap. Standing up against piracy is also important to them, but the code is out, and there is no way to stop it no matter what they do, any new firmware is just gonna be a bump to them. Stopping the pirates is important for Sony, Im sure, as it should be for everyone, but its second to screwing Hotz back. Thats just what I think.

I hear ya, but I can't condone the "the damage is done let him go" felling that's going on here. That's like a cop going, "Well, this guy's already dead and he looks like he was shot in the face. We know who did it but it's not gonna bring the victim back so let's go for a coffee instead huh Bill?." This guy knew the risks of being sued by a major corporation when he pulled this stunt. I'm sure he wasn't born yesterday, and I'm sure he's seen companies bleed people out of their money as a tactic. If Sony can't get this guy doing time, they'll force him to spend every dime he has. Punishment has to be served somehow. We can't just let people go around telling everyone how to circumvent security codes without reprimanding them. It also sucks that the only court in the States that will hear cases related to video gaming in anyway shape or form is California. It doesn't help out video game companies at all. It would really help stop piracy of this kind from happening if more courts took on cases like this.

 

[JDKJ]

I dont think Sony dumb enough to think it can stop the signal.

Well this hack allows people to pirate games. Games made by companies other than Sony......

Yes but, I still think their main objective here, beyond anything else, is hurt Hotz in his wallet.....

I hear ya, but I can't condone the "the damage is done let him go" felling that's going on here. That's like a cop going, "Well, this guy's already dead and he looks like he was shot in the face. We know who did it but it's not gonna bring the victim back so let's go for a coffee instead huh Bill?." This guy knew the risks of being sued by a major corporation when he pulled this stunt. I'm sure he wasn't born yesterday, and I'm sure he's seen companies bleed people out of their money as a tactic. If Sony can't get this guy doing time, they'll force him to spend every dime he has. Punishment has to be served somehow. We can't just let people go around telling everyone how to circumvent security codes without reprimanding them. It also sucks that the only court in the States that will hear cases related to video gaming in anyway shape or form is California. It doesn't help out video game companies at all. It would really help stop piracy of this kind from happening if more courts took on cases like this.

They seem to think that just because they cant undo whats been done, they shouldnt do anything at all, and thats complete bu****t. I dont personally know Hotz, Im not friends with him, so, I dont care if he spends the rest of his egocentric life; poor in prison, or rich in a mansion. But, I agree with you, I believe that he should be punished for what he did. I think he has the god-given right to hack everything he wants, but the next time he hacks something, he doesnt tell everyone know how to effing do it. Im very sure that he released the codes with malicious intent. No one can convince me that he ONLY wanted to help people get Linux on a PS3. I bet he was more than happy to release these codes fully knowing that this would lead to piracy. Then, go on the internet to brag about it, and to top it off, go on TV and act all surprised because he got sued. I dont like what he did, and I really dont like that he was bragging about it either. He wanted to screw Sony, but Sony is filthy rich, this is a minor inconvenience to them. (What I mean by that is, that if somehow the PS3 brand looses too much money over this, they will make up the money in another department, or make another console, they make TV's you know, you ever see a house without a TV? I dont think so! but I digress...). The people who will really be affected are the honest PSN users, they will have to endure hackers on our games online, like what is happening on MW2 now, constant updates, and pirates playing for free games that they should have payed for. All this just because this little a****le wanted to screw Sony.

I suspect it has something to do with the fact that those who steal the intellectual property of others or condone those who do so have come up with a million and one justifications for why doing so isn't wrong, ranging from "it's my property and I can do want I want with it" to "Sony's an asshole corporation and deserves to get ripped-off." They've in some way or another convinced themselves -- usually with bogus assumptions and conclusions -- that they have a right of some sort to trample on the intellectual property rights of others. That's the part that I don't understand. If you want to take the risk of stealing other people's property and have no moral qualms about doing so, then fine. That's your choice. But don't get to crying like a lil' ***** when you get caught and have to pay the price. Man up and take your medicine. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is the age-old rule on the streets. Hotz did his crime and now he's got to do the time. Plain and simple. I've got no sympathy for him.

 

[BlackWidower]

So Geohot is stalking Sony? Oh, he's not allowed to crack a Playstation anymore. Okay, I'm pretty sure this is against the First Amendment. This certainly falls under free speech.