|
|
|
Sony: Geohot fled to South America
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 23 March, 2011
According to VGHQ, George 'Geohot' Hotz has fled to South America in an effort to avoid handing over his possessions to Sony.
Furthermore, Sony has caught Geohot lying on record, outing his PSN account which he claimed did not exist.
Sony's official document in the case, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Hotz reads:
Though the evidence establishing personal jurisdiction ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 13:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lissenup3:
EULAs are a scam. They should be disallowed because they are a form of entrapment. Basically, "agree with what we say or don't use our software".
Indeed, you're given a choice to use the software or not... How is this entrapment exactly?
Entrapment would be forcing you to use it, then after you used it forcing you to accept the agreement on the basis that you had already used it.
Quote:
It's a legal loop hole
10 cls
20 input "accept agreement and use software (y/n)";a$
30 if lower$(a$)<>"y" or lower$(a$)<>"yes" then goto 70
40 cls
50 print "You have accepted the agreement, enjoy using!"
60 goto 90
70 cls
80 print "You have not accepted the agreement, goodbye!"
90 end
Pretty clear way out of this loop if you ask me, just don't accept the agreement.
Quote:
and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
That old chestnut - agree with me or you're a <expletive here> - isn't that entrapment according to you?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 13:25
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 13:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by lissenup3:
EULAs are a scam. They should be disallowed because they are a form of entrapment. Basically, "agree with what we say or don't use our software".
Indeed, you're given a choice to use the software or not... How is this entrapment exactly?
Entrapment would be forcing you to use it, then after you used it forcing you to accept the agreement on the basis that you had already used it.
Quote:
It's a legal loop hole
10 cls
20 input "accept agreement and use software (y/n)";a$
30 if lower$(a$)<>"y" or lower$(a$)<>"yes" then goto 70
40 cls
50 print "You have accepted the agreement, enjoy using!"
60 goto 90
70 cls
80 print "You have not accepted the agreement, goodbye!"
90 end
Pretty clear way out of this loop if you ask me, just don't accept the agreement.
Quote:
and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
That old chestnut - agree with me or you're a <expletive here> - isn't that entrapment according to you?
You can refer to it how you will, the point being is that it is bs but we have to live with it.
I have the only source of water in town though 15 miles out there is another source. You can either pay me 100.00 per gallon or you can walk 15 miles to buy cheaper.
This is superman
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 13:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by adre02:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by lissenup3:
EULAs are a scam. They should be disallowed because they are a form of entrapment. Basically, "agree with what we say or don't use our software".
Indeed, you're given a choice to use the software or not... How is this entrapment exactly?
Entrapment would be forcing you to use it, then after you used it forcing you to accept the agreement on the basis that you had already used it.
Quote:
It's a legal loop hole
10 cls
20 input "accept agreement and use software (y/n)";a$
30 if lower$(a$)<>"y" or lower$(a$)<>"yes" then goto 70
40 cls
50 print "You have accepted the agreement, enjoy using!"
60 goto 90
70 cls
80 print "You have not accepted the agreement, goodbye!"
90 end
Pretty clear way out of this loop if you ask me, just don't accept the agreement.
Quote:
and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
That old chestnut - agree with me or you're a <expletive here> - isn't that entrapment according to you?
You can refer to it how you will, the point being is that it is bs but we have to live with it.
I have the only source of water in town though 15 miles out there is another source. You can either pay me 100.00 per gallon or you can walk 15 miles to buy cheaper.
Water is a necessity for life, PS3 operating systems are not. In your example, the ruling gvt would (most likely) sieze the water source and force you to lower the price dramatically.
Now, fact aside:
I (and I suspect most of your towns potential customers) would MOVE to the other town with cheaper water, thus you have lost my custom... I (and I suspect most of the towns occupants) made a choice based your terms, and you lost the sales of water you COULD have gained had your terms been more reasonable.
Lets continue this example:
You have the only water source for 15 miles, but all your towns people go to a town 15 miles away because the water is cheaper. The townspeople have stated categorically that you will not get their custom unless you take the price down. What do you do?
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by adre02:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by lissenup3:
EULAs are a scam. They should be disallowed because they are a form of entrapment. Basically, "agree with what we say or don't use our software".
Indeed, you're given a choice to use the software or not... How is this entrapment exactly?
Entrapment would be forcing you to use it, then after you used it forcing you to accept the agreement on the basis that you had already used it.
Quote:
It's a legal loop hole
10 cls
20 input "accept agreement and use software (y/n)";a$
30 if lower$(a$)<>"y" or lower$(a$)<>"yes" then goto 70
40 cls
50 print "You have accepted the agreement, enjoy using!"
60 goto 90
70 cls
80 print "You have not accepted the agreement, goodbye!"
90 end
Pretty clear way out of this loop if you ask me, just don't accept the agreement.
Quote:
and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
That old chestnut - agree with me or you're a <expletive here> - isn't that entrapment according to you?
You can refer to it how you will, the point being is that it is bs but we have to live with it.
I have the only source of water in town though 15 miles out there is another source. You can either pay me 100.00 per gallon or you can walk 15 miles to buy cheaper.
Water is a necessity for life, PS3 operating systems are not. In your example, the ruling gvt would (most likely) sieze the water source and force you to lower the price dramatically.
Now, fact aside:
I (and I suspect most of your towns potential customers) would MOVE to the other town with cheaper water, thus you have lost my custom... I (and I suspect most of the towns occupants) made a choice based your terms, and you lost the sales of water you COULD have gained had your terms been more reasonable.
Lets continue this example:
You have the only water source for 15 miles, but all your towns people go to a town 15 miles away because the water is cheaper. The townspeople have stated categorically that you will not get their custom unless you take the price down. What do you do?
I relax my prices, simple as that. This is the same thing as what I was saying before, I had to stop typing due to being at the primed but in continuing...I would relax my prices or find a compromise. Sony should find a middle ground but they will not because people continue to support their rules.
Sony could very easily give some ground and make a compromise. How about charging an extra fee? If someone's ps3 has been modified then charge them an extra xix to be on psn. I am not saying do this or that but there is a middle ground that will settle this. Locking up geo isn't going to stop it.
One other tidbit about the water scenario, most occupants would not just move. Some would be forced to pay the prices because they cannot just "pick up and go". Now, this is what I was getting at with the ps3. Some people just do not want to play the game on a computer so they are forced to use XBOX or PS3, or put their own engineering team together to build their own system(not a chance for this).
So, people are FORCED to either choose to agree to the EULA or say that they are not going to agree and not purchase, or purchase/agree and break the EULA.
This is superman
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 15:57
|
|
alexeemo
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. March 2011 @ 15:51 |
Link to this message
|
It doesn't change the fact that theOriginally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by adre02:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by lissenup3:
EULAs are a scam. They should be disallowed because they are a form of entrapment. Basically, "agree with what we say or don't use our software".
Indeed, you're given a choice to use the software or not... How is this entrapment exactly?
Entrapment would be forcing you to use it, then after you used it forcing you to accept the agreement on the basis that you had already used it.
Quote:
It's a legal loop hole
10 cls
20 input "accept agreement and use software (y/n)";a$
30 if lower$(a$)<>"y" or lower$(a$)<>"yes" then goto 70
40 cls
50 print "You have accepted the agreement, enjoy using!"
60 goto 90
70 cls
80 print "You have not accepted the agreement, goodbye!"
90 end
Pretty clear way out of this loop if you ask me, just don't accept the agreement.
Quote:
and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
That old chestnut - agree with me or you're a <expletive here> - isn't that entrapment according to you?
You can refer to it how you will, the point being is that it is bs but we have to live with it.
I have the only source of water in town though 15 miles out there is another source. You can either pay me 100.00 per gallon or you can walk 15 miles to buy cheaper.
Water is a necessity for life, PS3 operating systems are not. In your example, the ruling gvt would (most likely) sieze the water source and force you to lower the price dramatically.
Now, fact aside:
I (and I suspect most of your towns potential customers) would MOVE to the other town with cheaper water, thus you have lost my custom... I (and I suspect most of the towns occupants) made a choice based your terms, and you lost the sales of water you COULD have gained had your terms been more reasonable.
Lets continue this example:
You have the only water source for 15 miles, but all your towns people go to a town 15 miles away because the water is cheaper. The townspeople have stated categorically that you will not get their custom unless you take the price down. What do you do?
Lawyers fill the EULA with whatever they want and no one ever reads them cause they are insanely difficult to read sometimes, not to mention a million miles long and boring as heck! The point is is that the companies count on you to just hit accept cause no one in their right mind is gonna hire a lawyer to have them explain the EULA.
Entrapment is not the right word but it's surely how you feel each time you click it just hoping that the company isn't intentionally trying to burn you. That being said, there have been instances wehere sensible judges have ruled in favor of consumers. For example a couple of years ago there was a music cd that had some kinda weird, hidden secret, virus like program that automatically installed on peoples computers when the tried to rip the cd to mp3. It was impossible to remove and it never notified the consumer it was being installed. Word finally got out and even though the lame a** company had clearly expained it in the 4 trillion page EULA(exagerating on purpose) that this spyware was being installed, the judge ruled in favor of consumers cause it's just plain wrong and deceptive.
Bottom line is that if I buy the friggin thing and pay for it in full, it is complete BS that said company can come along later and tell me what I can and cannot do with a product I legally paid for. You know it's morally wrong, they know it's morally wrong, everyone knows it's morally wrong......period. Problem is that these companies get lawmakers in their pockets to create laws that are just plain wrong and only seem to benefit the large corporations and not the consumer.
I knew this when I bought my ps3. So I grin and bear it just so I can play the games I like. I have little need to fight the establishment, but I hope others who are more passionate keep up the good fight until consumers become the top priority of companies and lawmakers alike.
PSN ID alexeemo, Level 10, 484 Trophies and counting
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 15:54
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
Ah... so the issue is people are unwilling to refuse the agreements or read what the agreement terms are... and that is Sony's fault because..?
And I still fail to see how ANYONE can justifiably infer that they are FORCED into a PS3 agreement anyway. Are you seriously saying you were forced to buy a PS3. How would not buying a PS3 have been detrimental to your well-being? Did Sony threaten you with legal action, or death, murdering your family, raping your dog or something else if you did NOT buy the PS3? Is owning a PS3 the single most important indicator for your happiness forsaking everything else ever from now till eternity?
These are examples of "force" and it is a gross exaggeration, a total bastardisation of the English language, to suggest owning a PS3 comes anywhere NEAR those examples.
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 20:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by alexeemo:
The point is is that the companies count on you to just hit accept cause no one in their right mind is gonna hire a lawyer to have them explain the EULA.
No. The companies give you the EULA as they are required by law to do so. The reason for this law is to provide a clear groundwork for if there is some kind of dispute later on between you and the company providing the service or item. This is the same law that will use the EULA *IN YOUR FAVOUR* should you have a grievance with that company. Therefore it is your right (and certainly in your interests) to read the EULA. The EULA is there to lay down the terms of the agreement, and it is your duty to ensure those terms are compatible with what you want to use the particular product for.
Ignorance is no defence.. and you cant even claim ignorance because the EULA has been presented to you in a very obvious manner... next to the little box that you tick is also clearly indicated text to the effect of "Check this box to indicate you have read the agreement". So not only do these "click and hope" people not read the agreement, they also LIE that they have.
So lets get this clear once and for all:
Sony are being chastised for including a restrictive EULA.
People then neither read it, and then lie saying they did.
Then Sony enforce the EULA, people claim it is too restrictive (having not even read it in the first place)
Talk about hypocritical! People don't read the EULA (a document written for clarification in legal matters) and accept it regardless, then complain that the law does not back them up.
The EULA is for everyone's benefit, and perhaps you should spend more time reading that then complaining on these threads that you didn't.
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Ah... so the issue is people are unwilling to refuse the agreements or read what the agreement terms are... and that is Sony's fault because..?
And I still fail to see how ANYONE can justifiably infer that they are FORCED into a PS3 agreement anyway. Are you seriously saying you were forced to buy a PS3. How would not buying a PS3 have been detrimental to your well-being? Did Sony threaten you with legal action, or death, murdering your family, raping your dog or something else if you did NOT buy the PS3? Is owning a PS3 the single most important indicator for your happiness forsaking everything else ever from now till eternity?
These are examples of "force" and it is a gross exaggeration, a total bastardisation of the English language, to suggest owning a PS3 comes anywhere NEAR those examples.
So, people are FORCED to either choose to agree to the EULA or say that they are not going to agree and not purchase, or purchase/agree and break the EULA.
Ok, then, you are obligated to accept the EULA terms when you take ownership of the system. Still, even using obligation, you are moved by the forces of the EULA which binds you to the terms and agreements.
Regardless of how you spin it; you can type responses until this earth ends; it will not change the FACTS.
Now the difference in true obligation and a contract is that with true obligation, you can break that obligatory "agreement" without consequence in most cases or in some, let's be real here. With this, you are signing a contract; you break it, and you end up the whipping boy of SONY.
This is superman
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 22:05
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:04 |
Link to this message
|
When you say people are unwilling to refuse the agreement? No, most people purchase the system and could care less about the agreement. I know that if i supported SONY and purchased a Ps3, I would not give one iota about their EULA agreement.
This is superman
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by adre02:
When you say people are unwilling to refuse the agreement? No, most people purchase the system and could care less about the agreement. I know that if i supported SONY and purchased a Ps3, I would not give one iota about their EULA agreement
So you must accept the consequences of those actions!
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:24 |
Link to this message
|
Of course I do, so do many individuals.
I never said that the guy was innocent. I said that him going to jail will not stop or solve anything, and/or he will never go to jail period.
I also stated that the only way this thing ends is that if there is a compromise. Like I stated before, charge people the extra money if they are found on the PSN with a modded system, say $40 bucks, 65, 100 bucks a month, or whatever fee.
Put in a new clause that says if you want to use the PSN and you have a modded system, we have the legal right to charge you xyz amount to use your modded system on our network.
This way, people who want to go with the modded system will still end up making Sony money. There is a way for both parties to win here and going after this quirk isn't going to do it.
Imagine if 90% of PS3 owners modded their system in the next month, do you think SONY would ban them from the PSN? Of course they would not; they would find a means to make money from the breach.
This is superman
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by adre02:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Ah... so the issue is people are unwilling to refuse the agreements or read what the agreement terms are... and that is Sony's fault because..?
And I still fail to see how ANYONE can justifiably infer that they are FORCED into a PS3 agreement anyway. Are you seriously saying you were forced to buy a PS3. How would not buying a PS3 have been detrimental to your well-being? Did Sony threaten you with legal action, or death, murdering your family, raping your dog or something else if you did NOT buy the PS3? Is owning a PS3 the single most important indicator for your happiness forsaking everything else ever from now till eternity?
These are examples of "force" and it is a gross exaggeration, a total bastardisation of the English language, to suggest owning a PS3 comes anywhere NEAR those examples.
So, people are FORCED to either choose to agree to the EULA or say that they are not going to agree and not purchase, or purchase/agree and break the EULA.
Ok, then, you are obligated to accept the EULA terms when you take ownership of the system. Still, even using obligation, you are moved by the forces of the EULA which binds you to the terms and agreements.
As with any contract... it is legally binding and you must adhere to the contract you sign for and deserve any and all punishment should you break the contract (break does not equal end by the way). Or are you saying that contracts have no place in modern society? If so, I must assume you are not working (employment contract) and have no place of abode (tenancy agreement), and am mearly using someone elses computer (since they also come with some form of contractual warrenty). Hopefully, the person whose computer you are using has not laid down any agreement for what you can do with their computer (verbal agreement) else you would NOW be proving how selective (hipocritical) you were by accepting any of those terms... hang on - by posting here you accepted after-dawns agreement (uh-oh... a contractual agreement between you and another party).
Quote:
Regardless of how you spin it; you can type responses until this earth ends; it will not change the FACTS.
I dont intend to change the facts, I am just reminding you of them... if you make an agreements between you and another party, UNDER CURRENT LAW, you are bindable to those agreements and risk penalty if you illegally break them. THAT is a fact!
Quote:
Now the difference in true obligation and a contract is that with true obligation, you can break that obligatory "agreement" without consequence in most cases or in some, let's be real here.
You can END the contract (or indeed not accept it).
Quote:
With this, you are signing a contract; you break it, and you end up the whipping boy of SONY.
No. With this, you sign the contract and, similar to all other contracts, you adhere to it or risk punishment.
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
26. March 2011 @ 22:35 |
Link to this message
|
I bet your the same kinda person who screams foul when a company decides to break its agreement with you because it was more in your favour then it is now.
Imagine the scenario, your ticket matches all 6 lottory numbers, your due for millions under the agreement issued with the ticket. The lotto company decide not to pay it out because they just don't want to adhere to the terms they agreed to when they sold you the ticket... would you just shrug your shoulders and accept it, or would you fight it and ask the courts to enforce the agreement?
Think hard because you'll either be a hypocrite or accepting that Sony are right to pursue those breaking the PS3 agreement. Your call!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 22:39
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 23:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
I bet your the same kinda person who screams foul when a company decides to break its agreement with you because it was more in your favour then it is now.
Imagine the scenario, your ticket matches all 6 lottory numbers, your due for millions under the agreement issued with the ticket. The lotto company decide not to pay it out because they just don't want to adhere to the terms they agreed to when they sold you the ticket... would you just shrug your shoulders and accept it, or would you fight it and ask the courts to enforce the agreement?
Think hard because you'll either be a hypocrite or accepting that Sony are right to pursue those breaking the PS3 agreement. Your call!!
No. I do not scream foul when a company decides to break an agreement that is in my favor. Just today my insurance company no longer allows me to fill prescriptions at the 3 locations that are nearest me (less than 5 mins) because the company that I work for is not allowing the insurance company to provide insurance unless I purchase my prescriptions from one of their approved venues(neither of which are closer than 35mins away). I was disappointed, but I did not scream foul. It is just like Sony, what am I going to do? Change jobs? No, I must adhere to their stipulations. My job has such an enormous influence over Aetna until they can tell Aetna where we can get our prescriptions filled and where we cannot.
Furthermore, I am not sure you are reading what I am typing or just responding off of assumption. Once again, I never said that Geo was innocent, nor was Sony wrong by going after the guy. I clearly stated that it will not do any good and he will not spend a DAY, not one second in JAIL under sentencing.
Also, what are you talking about? Where did I state that I would or would not do something due to a contract? I unequivocally stated that I would not care if said contract read "You can purchase this PS3, but you cannot play it on Sunday between the hours of 12am and 11:45pm." I would still disregard the contract if I feel that it is unjustifiably binding.
Again, do not change the facts of what I wrote. State what you may, but do not try and make me out to be a liar.
This is superman
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
26. March 2011 @ 23:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
So, are you the type that would live in a non-self defense state and just allow robbers to butcher your family because the law says there is no self defense law in your state, and if you kill someone, no matter what, you face imprisonment?
Well, you can always just move, right?
This is superman
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. March 2011 @ 23:22
|
|
flamitaz
Junior Member
|
27. March 2011 @ 00:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by o0cynix0o:
And the whole "Not to my knowlage"... I used that excuse to, when I had stuff in my car and didn't want to go to jail. Fact of the matter is "If you own it your responsible for it.? Again it sucks but it's the truth. Doesn't matter who created the account... his mom, borther, sister, red headed step-child; he's responsible for what is on and what gets done with his PS3....
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. March 2011 @ 00:07
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
27. March 2011 @ 03:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by adre02:
So, are you the type that would live in a non-self defense state and just allow robbers to butcher your family
Okay, so robbers have killed my family... check...
Quote:
because the law says there is no self defense law in your state
Okay, cant use self defence... check
Quote:
and if you kill someone, no matter what, you face imprisonment?
Well for one thing, they would be murderers, not robbers.
Secondly, having killed my family, under the law - I wouldn't need to seek vengeance as the law dictated they would go to jail, no matter what!
Quote:
Well, you can always just move, right?
Migration from oppressive regimes has gone on for centuries in one form or another...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. March 2011 @ 03:50
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
27. March 2011 @ 10:33 |
Link to this message
|
I have spent quite some time in law; robbers become murderers quite quickly. It only takes one robbery gone wrong for a young man/woman to become listed as a murderer, level of not withstanding. So do not try and attempt to give me a lesson in actuality here, please.
To add, you would just sit by with your hands behind your back thinking that since you are in a no-defense state, you cannot do anything to inflict bodily harm to the trespasser? You see, that's my only issue with you to how you are projecting yourself in this thread.
You appear to be an individual that will abide by a contract, law, obligation, no matter how twisted or unfair or how convoluted it may be. Are you that type of person? Or, are you the type of person that will actually fight for fairness in your favor?
Again, as I have stated many times in this thread and my only point is that GEO will not DO A DAY IN JAIL under sentencing for this, nor will this stop anyone from modding their systems.
SONY, eventually, will have to compromise.
And, before this goes further into a realm where neither of us would like to venture, let me say that you seem to be an intelligent individual with a tether to common sense. Please do not use the 'holier than thou' attitude as if you want us to believe that you have never broken one law, committed one sin, or argued about one rule...get off of your imaginary horse.
My opinion is that you have probably broken quite a few rules, contracts, laws, etc, in your time here on this earth. Though, perhaps nothing of significance. And, you probably find that this argument suits you well because someone has to play devil's advocate for SONY. You probably do not even believe in what you are typing, do you? Com'on now, tell us the truth.
This is superman
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
27. March 2011 @ 10:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Double quote
This is superman
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. March 2011 @ 10:35
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
27. March 2011 @ 17:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by adre02:
I have spent quite some time in law; robbers become murderers quite quickly. It only takes one robbery gone wrong for a young man/woman to become listed as a murderer, level of not withstanding. So do not try and attempt to give me a lesson in actuality here, please.
It would also take a very short amount of time for an anarchical society as you have projected to have no-one left in it, since they would all have moved out to a far more lawful place to live. As would I.
Quote:
You appear to be an individual that will abide by a contract, law, obligation, no matter how twisted or unfair or how convoluted it may be. Are you that type of person? Or, are you the type of person that will actually fight for fairness in your favor?
I am the type of individual that actually bothers to read what contracts I enter into, and should I find the contract does not fit with what I want or need, I will not enter the contract.
Quote:
Again, as I have stated many times in this thread and my only point is that GEO will not DO A DAY IN JAIL under sentencing for this, nor will this stop anyone from modding their systems.
That's still a debate for lawyers and I am not one of them. But either way, Sony have the right to chase him and seek prosecution.... THAT is the point I have always maintained.
Quote:
SONY, eventually, will have to compromise.
Maybe, maybe not... I suspect they will, but again... until they do, they have the right to enforce whatever terms they see fit, and the consumer has the right to turn down those terms and not use the product... ergo, the consumer is not FORCED into anything.
Quote:
And, before this goes further into a realm where neither of us would like to venture, let me say that you seem to be an intelligent individual with a tether to common sense. Please do not use the 'holier than thou' attitude as if you want us to believe that you have never broken one law, committed one sin, or argued about one rule...get off of your imaginary horse.
You shouldn't judge everyone by your own standards. I am certainly not holier then thou, but I do (and I can't understand why I need to repeat this yet again) READ THE CONTRACTS I SIGN BEFORE I SIGN THEM... and I don't sign up for anything that does not agree with me. Consider it OPT-IN rather then OPT-OUT. I make a concious decision to only sign up for what I accept the terms of. PS3 hackers appear to lean towards opt-out, in that they just accept any old agreement, and only when problems arise, do they actually bother to think about what they are signed in to.
Quote:
My opinion is that you have probably broken quite a few rules, contracts, laws, etc, in your time here on this earth. Though, perhaps nothing of significance. And, you probably find that this argument suits you well because someone has to play devil's advocate for SONY. You probably do not even believe in what you are typing, do you? Com'on now, tell us the truth.
I advocate a lawful existence... that is all!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. March 2011 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
MrZoolook
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.Its nothing less than a quassi authoritarian legalized mob. I have little sympathy or respect for the copy right system because the power that be ran it into the ground not the mythical one legged bandit the disorganized and drunken bootleggers even the millions made around torrents and file shareing they have merely created new ways to make money sure once they have to catch up to what is owed to the system they can't maintain things but I see more innovation made outside the normal venues of the industry, its the industries fault for not catching on and moving into that market.
Hell they can't even cut down the worth of an IP to a percent and use that mind set to drive sells by allowing more people to be a licensee(have a game with the name only of a big series at a 30% of profit rate, stream media itself for 25% of profit).
Antiquatition and a fat angry middle man is what will kill the industry.
What we need is an ovaer haul of the IP/copy right system, and here are my thoughts on that..
http://forums.afterdawn.com/t.cfm/f-45/overhauling_copyright-892797/
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. March 2011 @ 18:56
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
27. March 2011 @ 18:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
MrZoolook
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
MrZoolook
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.
I have not been forced into accepting the PS3 agreement... I exercise a choice not to own a PS3.
I think that disproves the idea that one is forced into the agreement quite frankly!
|
|
MrZoolook
Junior Member
|
27. March 2011 @ 18:59 |
Link to this message
|
forced [fɔːst]
adj
1. done because of force; compulsory forced labour
2. false or unnatural a forced smile
3. due to an emergency or necessity a forced landing
4. (Physics / General Physics) Physics caused by an external agency a forced vibration a forced draught
Okay, so we can scratch #1 since it isn't compulsory to own a PS3.
Logically, #2 does not apply.
Since owning a PS3 is not essential to life, #3 is crossed off.
#4 I include for completeness, but does not apply.
Unless you can prove an example that #1 or #3 apply of course.
The fact is you are given a choice, you choose to accept or decline... how are you forced into the agreement?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. March 2011 @ 18:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
MrZoolook
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
MrZoolook
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.
I have not been forced into accepting the PS3 agreement... I exercise a choice not to own a PS3.
I think that disproves the idea that one is forced into the agreement quite frankly!
Quote:
It is forced, the world revolves around consumption and is no less important as food as media is equal bits information,inspiration and education.
They only have the right to profit off their IP not hold a gun over you if you get out of line.Its nothing less than a quassi authoritarian legalized mob. I have little sympathy or respect for the copy right system because the power that be ran it into the ground not the mythical one legged bandit the disorganized and drunken bootleggers even the millions made around torrents and file shareing they have merely created new ways to make money sure once they have to catch up to what is owed to the system they can't maintain things but I see more innovation made outside the normal venues of the industry, its the industries fault for not catching on and moving into that market.
Hell they can't even cut down the worth of an IP to a percent and use that mind set to drive sells by allowing more people to be a licensee(have a game with the name only of a big series at a 30% of profit rate, stream media itself for 25% of profit).
Antiquatition and a fat angry middle man is what will kill the industry.
What we need is an ovaer haul of the IP/copy right system, and here are my thoughts on that..
http://forums.afterdawn.com/t.cfm/f-45/overhauling_copyright-892797/
Sorry for the repost I tend to finish a post after I endt it acouple times LOL
But my point is you were forced as its the only thing going there is not a real open source setup with that kind of qaulity and options in it.The 360 and PS3 ,WII are all essentially the same. It dose not matter if you buy one or not the only chocies you have come with a very grumpy balled and fat ex cop whose now a laywer look for knees thump because the suits need more cocaine.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. March 2011 @ 19:00
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. March 2011 @ 19:08 |
Link to this message
|
So you want to nit pick...let me ask you this then, how many poeple only consume books, magiznses or news paper? ONLY?
How mnay people choose to not watch TV anymore because the price and cost of it is not worth the money nor the time wasted?
Choosing between a rotten banna,apple or orange in a barrel the size of the world is not choice. The system is set up so most people fallow the person in front of them its just what humans do if this were not the case there would be real damage being done to the media industry across the board but in fact they are making more money than ever, so limiting out rights and freedoms and our consumers rights is a loss loss for us ALL..
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
