UPDATE: PS3 Hacker GeoHot Claims He's on Vacation
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
So, on top of the crimes he committed against Sony, he has now tampered with evidence, disobeyed a court order, and committed fraud? Nice. I hope he gets thrown in jail for a while and then joins that small list of crackers who are banned from using computers ever again.
Take a sledge hammer to the drive until it's completely crushed, then proceed to microwave it on high for 5 minutes.Selvec said:
Place into pan with water and 2 tablespoons of salt, stir until water has evaporated.
Done. You now have ready made HDDs that will never provide anyone with data ever again.
I thought the Escapist would support the rights of gamers.
Yeah he fled, but that's not the point. Sony is still in the wrong.
"Sony has proof that Hotz created a PlayStation Network account and therefore agreed to the PSN User Agreement"
So what? The PSN UA is BS!
Yeah he fled, but that's not the point. Sony is still in the wrong.
"Sony has proof that Hotz created a PlayStation Network account and therefore agreed to the PSN User Agreement"
So what? The PSN UA is BS!
Are you allowed to leave the country unexpectedly while under litigation like this?uppitycracker said:Sony is gonna look REALLY SILLY when it just turns out he went to go visit his South American family
Seriously. Even if SONY won, I was hoping someone would turn around and say "Alright guys, now tone it the fuck down and play nice from now on" make some bloody progress in the industry.Irridium said:
Well that's game over for any of us who supported him. Obviously he didn't have as much confidence in winning the case as he said he did.
I guess that's that then; another champion for consumer rights just turns out to be not only a coward but a lying coward at that. The thing that pisses me off the most is that this only justifies Sony's case which, until now, seemed to have no merit other than Sony being mad it got burned by the kind of people that run Linux on the PS3.
I guess that's that then; another champion for consumer rights just turns out to be not only a coward but a lying coward at that. The thing that pisses me off the most is that this only justifies Sony's case which, until now, seemed to have no merit other than Sony being mad it got burned by the kind of people that run Linux on the PS3.
Yes, he did something stupid. However Sony taking away the right to use the PS3 however you want (like the military using them as cheap supercomputers) is just sad. Throughout this case I have lost all respect I had for Sony, and GeoHotz running made me lose almost all respect for him.
The thing is it really is just Sony being mad, and GeoHot just overshadowed that fact.KeyMaster45 said:
They didn't have to prove he owned a PS3 - he legally had to give them a list of the consoles he owned, so that was obvious. What they had to prove was that he has agreed to Sony's terms of use and subscriber agreement, which is a huge legal document.ToastedEngineer said:
By proving that he agreed to it, they prove that he has entered into a legal agreement with Sony. In addition to the whole "not modifying your console, etc" parts, that agreement will have clauses in it that deal with legal action and arbitration. Those will likely give Sony a lot more leverage in their current battle over the case venue.
For something seemingly minor, it's probably a pretty big blow to his defense case.
You know what really sucks?
All the people that backed him not because they wanted to be able to pirate anything, but because of the argument of 'ownership' and companies holding non-existant terms over their products even years after they've been sold. I myself felt very strongly about this issue because of that (even though that technically isn't the exact scenario, but still)
For all the people who donated money so that product developers couldn't 'rent' their items rather than actually selling them... this is a serious shot in the foot.
All the people that backed him not because they wanted to be able to pirate anything, but because of the argument of 'ownership' and companies holding non-existant terms over their products even years after they've been sold. I myself felt very strongly about this issue because of that (even though that technically isn't the exact scenario, but still)
For all the people who donated money so that product developers couldn't 'rent' their items rather than actually selling them... this is a serious shot in the foot.
There is brain smarts, and then there is common sense that tampering with court evidence, fucking off and disobeying a court order, and fleeing a legal battle is WRONG.green_dude said:
He fails at number 2
