surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
So Sony realized they didn't have a substantial case against Hotz and settled/paid Hotz to admit they weren't going anywhere with this and that it just brought them into trouble with Anon. Not that it's going to stop anon hacks or hax being thrown around anyway. This has been nothing but bad PR on Sony's part, viciously going after customers with their litigation team.
@BenHaskett
Which is my point. Who cares about our rights as consumers as long as we get our fix. Keep the candy flowing and carefree consumers will let you do anything you want, there's nothing pathetic about that, amirite? People wonder why these huge gaming companies treat us all like morons...
@Byronic Man
Yeah, definitely worth reading though.
Which is my point. Who cares about our rights as consumers as long as we get our fix. Keep the candy flowing and carefree consumers will let you do anything you want, there's nothing pathetic about that, amirite? People wonder why these huge gaming companies treat us all like morons...
@Byronic Man
Yeah, definitely worth reading though.
@kwikpwn
Did you read the article, Sony basically just got everything they wanted. If anyone buckled here it was geohot.
also the sole thing anonymous accomplished was piss off psn users and ensure they have little in the way of support over here. Your a fool if you though that little display of childish behavior even made Sony flinch.
Did you read the article, Sony basically just got everything they wanted. If anyone buckled here it was geohot.
also the sole thing anonymous accomplished was piss off psn users and ensure they have little in the way of support over here. Your a fool if you though that little display of childish behavior even made Sony flinch.
Translation: We paid Geohot to shut up because this case would still be around when we launch NGP and we don't need the bad press for this on top of the sticker shock people are going to experience when they see the price.
... what Black Nexus said.
Any further action on Sony's part couldn't have accomplished anything more. They could have sued him for losses - but that would be a massive case and it's not like the guy has money anyway.
Any further action on Sony's part couldn't have accomplished anything more. They could have sued him for losses - but that would be a massive case and it's not like the guy has money anyway.
Was kind of hoping the case would set a precedent that would allow us to completely own the things we buy. But we can't talk like this in these parts because people equate being able to do what you want with piracy. It's idiotic sheeple thinking but regrettably It's prevalent.
I'm actually frustrated by this turn of events. But it's no unexpected. A lawsuit like this is a battle of attrition. Sony has considerable resources and Hotz is just a guy.
I'm actually frustrated by this turn of events. But it's no unexpected. A lawsuit like this is a battle of attrition. Sony has considerable resources and Hotz is just a guy.
what Xzyliac said
things were getting interesting when anon joined the party, we got the bad ending.
I guess this is good though, I don't have to worry about anything happening to my PS3 now.
things were getting interesting when anon joined the party, we got the bad ending.
I guess this is good though, I don't have to worry about anything happening to my PS3 now.
apologies for those first posts. iPod malfunction. I was trying to say "boring ending". I mean he was rapping and shit.
@Black Nexus
They settled out of court, how did Sony get everything they wanted if there was no ruling? Are you implying that Sony sued this guy, subpoenaed his PayPal records and the visitor logs on his website, tried to move the case to a more favorable venue, and publicized the crap out of all of this just because they wanted this one guy to cut the malarkey? Yeah, they just passed on setting a legal precedent that would have stacked the odds against anyone trying to sue them for many years to come because they had made sure one guy couldn't say their name in public anymore.
It doesn't matter who offered to settle and who accepted, if Sony thought they had a strong enough case there would have been no settlement. Sony had more to gain from winning this case than snatching up GeoHotz's money, much more.
They settled out of court, how did Sony get everything they wanted if there was no ruling? Are you implying that Sony sued this guy, subpoenaed his PayPal records and the visitor logs on his website, tried to move the case to a more favorable venue, and publicized the crap out of all of this just because they wanted this one guy to cut the malarkey? Yeah, they just passed on setting a legal precedent that would have stacked the odds against anyone trying to sue them for many years to come because they had made sure one guy couldn't say their name in public anymore.
It doesn't matter who offered to settle and who accepted, if Sony thought they had a strong enough case there would have been no settlement. Sony had more to gain from winning this case than snatching up GeoHotz's money, much more.
Oh Jimmy, you put on your fancy clothes just for the header image. That's nice of you.
"I´m happy this shit finally ended."
^This
"I´m happy this shit finally ended."
^This
@ OneRed:
"Which is my point. Who cares about our rights as consumers as long as we get our fix. Keep the candy flowing and carefree consumers will let you do anything you want, there's nothing pathetic about that, amirite? People wonder why these huge gaming companies treat us all like morons..."
Before all this garbage about Sony v. GeoHot hit the net, I had no idea people were so pissed about this OtherOS feature that was taken out before I even bought my PS3 (Dec '09). Then I find that there's this underbelly of the internet with thousands of angry people who are actually filing lawsuits because they're so pissed.
Fine, that's all well and good. However, I don't really think it's unreasonable that I bought a PS3 for the sole purpose of playing games on it. Once again, I didn't even know OtherOS was a thing before recently, but why would I have wanted it anyway? I have a computer...
So, as far as I've read, Sony took back the OtherOS option because they feared it would leave the console vulnerable to piracy. I'm not interested in using my PS3 for anything other than playing games, and I buy my games. Thus, none of this really amounts to much for me, and I don't feel as though my "rights as a consumer" have been violated. So, please, explain to me how this makes me a moron at all, as you implied.
"Which is my point. Who cares about our rights as consumers as long as we get our fix. Keep the candy flowing and carefree consumers will let you do anything you want, there's nothing pathetic about that, amirite? People wonder why these huge gaming companies treat us all like morons..."
Before all this garbage about Sony v. GeoHot hit the net, I had no idea people were so pissed about this OtherOS feature that was taken out before I even bought my PS3 (Dec '09). Then I find that there's this underbelly of the internet with thousands of angry people who are actually filing lawsuits because they're so pissed.
Fine, that's all well and good. However, I don't really think it's unreasonable that I bought a PS3 for the sole purpose of playing games on it. Once again, I didn't even know OtherOS was a thing before recently, but why would I have wanted it anyway? I have a computer...
So, as far as I've read, Sony took back the OtherOS option because they feared it would leave the console vulnerable to piracy. I'm not interested in using my PS3 for anything other than playing games, and I buy my games. Thus, none of this really amounts to much for me, and I don't feel as though my "rights as a consumer" have been violated. So, please, explain to me how this makes me a moron at all, as you implied.
@BenHaskett
I'm not implying you're personally a moron, only that a mindset like yours is why gaming outfits treat us as such.
And I'm implying that much because what effects one group of gaming consumers effects us all. Whether or not you used OtherOS doesn't matter, your right to expect a featured aspect of something you purchased to continue to function was violated. Sony removed a feature based on nothing more than "OtherOS allows you to use Linux, only hackers use Linux, and all hackers are pirates", without anything by way of hard facts or numbers.
What you're being told is that some people may or may not go too fast in their cars, and instead of investigating to see if it's that widespread an issue, everyone is just getting their cars taken away.
What you're saying back is "I don't care what you do, it doesn't effect me. I walk".
I'm not implying you're personally a moron, only that a mindset like yours is why gaming outfits treat us as such.
And I'm implying that much because what effects one group of gaming consumers effects us all. Whether or not you used OtherOS doesn't matter, your right to expect a featured aspect of something you purchased to continue to function was violated. Sony removed a feature based on nothing more than "OtherOS allows you to use Linux, only hackers use Linux, and all hackers are pirates", without anything by way of hard facts or numbers.
What you're being told is that some people may or may not go too fast in their cars, and instead of investigating to see if it's that widespread an issue, everyone is just getting their cars taken away.
What you're saying back is "I don't care what you do, it doesn't effect me. I walk".
@onered
Go read trevs last post on the first page, it will basically answer your question.
That's my fault though the details were from a different website not the one linked.
Go read trevs last post on the first page, it will basically answer your question.
That's my fault though the details were from a different website not the one linked.
So I see Sony was just trying to scare him, then agreed to a more reasonable deal without ruining the guy's life. +1 point for Sony, they are now a 33/100 to me.
Anonymus won't be happy.
Anonymus won't be happy.
Ah well. I was hoping the courts would really just whale on Hotz. Make him cough up the coin for every game that gets pirated with his tech, or something like that. This might get AssHatz out of Sony's hair (for a little while), but it won't put the fear of God into many other professional basement dwelling hackers. Which was what I thought their overall goal was.
@Black Nexus
All that order says, in a nutshell, is "GeoHotz has to cut it out". Instead of protecting themselves from future lawsuits, and putting the fear of god into anyone dumb enough to try to hack their devices by putting the most famous one into the poorhouse, they won the right to tell GeoHotz to cut it out.
After all that, all Sony got to do was tell him if he showed his face round their property again he'd be arrested for trespassing. The man got off cleaner than clean if that order is correct.
All that order says, in a nutshell, is "GeoHotz has to cut it out". Instead of protecting themselves from future lawsuits, and putting the fear of god into anyone dumb enough to try to hack their devices by putting the most famous one into the poorhouse, they won the right to tell GeoHotz to cut it out.
After all that, all Sony got to do was tell him if he showed his face round their property again he'd be arrested for trespassing. The man got off cleaner than clean if that order is correct.
@OneRed
Any chance of simply telling me what is of interest in that transcript, as I'm fairly averse to going through a ten thousand word legal narrative just to pick out a nugget of information?
Any chance of simply telling me what is of interest in that transcript, as I'm fairly averse to going through a ten thousand word legal narrative just to pick out a nugget of information?
@Byronic Man
In response to the judge asking why Sony used duration of a feature, and termination of said feature after such a time, as a defense for termination:
"Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.
If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."
And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.
So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"
In response to the judge asking why Sony used duration of a feature, and termination of said feature after such a time, as a defense for termination:
"Well, Your Honor, a manufacturer's obligation for anything having to do with a product itself is only defined by its express warranty, its express promises.
If SCEA, Sony, had said, "We guarantee that the other OS function would be supported," if they said, "We guarantee PlayStation Network access will always be available," anything about the duration, plaintiffs might have an argument. The only thing that Sony told anyone about the duration of any feature of the PS3 is what it said in the one year express limited hardware warranty. It said "one year."
And as the Daughtery case, as the Bardin case, and as subsequent federal court authorities have noted, where something arises after the duration of that promised one year, the purchaser can have no expectation.
So, Your Honor, if the purchaser can have no expectation of the PlayStation 3 functioning at all after the expiration of that one-year warranty, how can it somehow have a greater expectation about the availability of one feature? If SCEA cannot have liability under California law for the PS3 completely failing to perform after one year, how can it have liability for the fact that it does 99 percent of what it was advertised to do, and just not one?"
Gadly this finally stoped. Sony probably never wanted a dime from the guy, just that he stoped posting his hacks on the internet. And Hotz probably perceived that we would never make to the end of this trial without at least one ruling against him.
@Gameonicon
That's what I was thinking as well. Sorry code monkeys, but this doesn't help pirates, hackers or modders at all. GeoHot didn't win this in any way, shape or form. This was a plea bargain, and sadly we'll never know the details. BTW, this was never about OtherOS, it was about the root key. They either had him locked down tight for releasing the root key, or they had him for tampering evidence (his HDs).
You all may not know this, but Tampering With Evidence is a VERY serious crime. He could get 10 years and a $10,000 fine just for that alone. He bowed to the corporate master because they would've eaten him alive. Trust me, he's doing much more than what's on the statement, but no one other than the parties involved will ever know.
That's what I was thinking as well. Sorry code monkeys, but this doesn't help pirates, hackers or modders at all. GeoHot didn't win this in any way, shape or form. This was a plea bargain, and sadly we'll never know the details. BTW, this was never about OtherOS, it was about the root key. They either had him locked down tight for releasing the root key, or they had him for tampering evidence (his HDs).
You all may not know this, but Tampering With Evidence is a VERY serious crime. He could get 10 years and a $10,000 fine just for that alone. He bowed to the corporate master because they would've eaten him alive. Trust me, he's doing much more than what's on the statement, but no one other than the parties involved will ever know.
@OneRed
Sounds like they were trying their best to exploit consumer laws. Truth be told, your agitation should be directed at litigation failing to protect concumers against arguments like this. In Ireland, a judge would laugh in the face of those claims - although a company can offer whatever they want in a warranty, it doesn't superceed your rights as a consumer in terms of product expectation, meaning you can have your PS3 refunded even three years or more after date of purchase.
Sounds like they were trying their best to exploit consumer laws. Truth be told, your agitation should be directed at litigation failing to protect concumers against arguments like this. In Ireland, a judge would laugh in the face of those claims - although a company can offer whatever they want in a warranty, it doesn't superceed your rights as a consumer in terms of product expectation, meaning you can have your PS3 refunded even three years or more after date of purchase.
@Byronic Man
Really? You can have a refund after three years, two years after your warranty expired? Why?
Really? You can have a refund after three years, two years after your warranty expired? Why?
@ManWithNoName
The PS3 warranty concerns the manufacturer but there are laws in place that provide the consumer with rights concerning the retailer. The main one here is that goods must be of merchantable quality and perform as described and intended under reasonable conditions. One year is not a reasonable period of operation for the device. This has been confimed through common law precedant. It's pretty great.
The PS3 warranty concerns the manufacturer but there are laws in place that provide the consumer with rights concerning the retailer. The main one here is that goods must be of merchantable quality and perform as described and intended under reasonable conditions. One year is not a reasonable period of operation for the device. This has been confimed through common law precedant. It's pretty great.
For all of you brain-dead morons who "sided" with Sony:
If Sony won this case against Hotz, you and millions of other consumers would have lost all rights to do anything with your hardware. Your PS3 would no longer be yours, you would legally be paying Sony money for permission to have their console in your house.
Sony could go as much as sue you for painting your PS3 red if they wanted to. I couldn't care less about Hotz, he is indeed a douche and didn't handle things appropriately. We had nothing to win and so much to lose if Sony actually would have won this, because it would have set a precedent to other companies that they can charge you for the "right" to have their products sitting in your home, without you actually owning it.
In the end nobody won anything.
If Sony won this case against Hotz, you and millions of other consumers would have lost all rights to do anything with your hardware. Your PS3 would no longer be yours, you would legally be paying Sony money for permission to have their console in your house.
Sony could go as much as sue you for painting your PS3 red if they wanted to. I couldn't care less about Hotz, he is indeed a douche and didn't handle things appropriately. We had nothing to win and so much to lose if Sony actually would have won this, because it would have set a precedent to other companies that they can charge you for the "right" to have their products sitting in your home, without you actually owning it.
In the end nobody won anything.
@Byronic Man
And who determines how long it is? 'Goods must be of merchantable quality and perform as described', and Sony says the PS3 will perform for one year. They never promissed me more than that. If its a law, I respect it. I hope its not, as it seem to me a little unfair law to the manufacturer.
And who determines how long it is? 'Goods must be of merchantable quality and perform as described', and Sony says the PS3 will perform for one year. They never promissed me more than that. If its a law, I respect it. I hope its not, as it seem to me a little unfair law to the manufacturer.
The precedent set by this case would seem to be that SCEA's EULA is only binding pending a permanent injunction imposed by Sony's legal team.
...and it's doubtful even that would hold up for Sony if it were put to the test in court.
Glad to see at least of Sony's pending litigations put to rest.
...and it's doubtful even that would hold up for Sony if it were put to the test in court.
Glad to see at least of Sony's pending litigations put to rest.
Damn. I wanted exposions, car chases, people getting shot, and other random crap to happen towards the end. Oh well. I think I can strike a deal with Michael Bay and make a movie out of this.
... Wow, That's all it settled for? Sony got scared that they mitt not be able to use scare tactics if they lost.
Fair play to GeoHot, as much as I would have liked to have seen it go further, but I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to sink more time and cash into it.
Fair play to GeoHot, as much as I would have liked to have seen it go further, but I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to sink more time and cash into it.
@Basstomouth
WTF? Sony owned Hotz, there wasn't anything for Sony other than having "it wasn't my intention to release something... sniff... that help piracy.....".
Hotz sucks!! Any other hacker wouldn't fuuck us with "I'm gonna fight 4 your rights" and then apologize to Sony.
The bottom line. Don't believe a word from a self-proclaimed hacker and buy things knowing before the TOS.
WTF? Sony owned Hotz, there wasn't anything for Sony other than having "it wasn't my intention to release something... sniff... that help piracy.....".
Hotz sucks!! Any other hacker wouldn't fuuck us with "I'm gonna fight 4 your rights" and then apologize to Sony.
The bottom line. Don't believe a word from a self-proclaimed hacker and buy things knowing before the TOS.
@Basstomouth
WTF? Sony owned Hotz, there wasn't anything for Sony other than having "it wasn't my intention to release something... sniff... that help piracy.....".
Hotz sucks!! Any other hacker wouldn't fuuck us with "I'm gonna fight 4 your rights" and then apologize to Sony.
The bottom line. Don't believe a word from a self-proclaimed hacker and buy things knowing before the TOS.
WTF? Sony owned Hotz, there wasn't anything for Sony other than having "it wasn't my intention to release something... sniff... that help piracy.....".
Hotz sucks!! Any other hacker wouldn't fuuck us with "I'm gonna fight 4 your rights" and then apologize to Sony.
The bottom line. Don't believe a word from a self-proclaimed hacker and buy things knowing before the TOS.
@Immolinac
Sony hardly owned anyone. Reading the leaked order that resulted from the settlement, Sony definitely came out on the losing end of this one with no doubt. Not only was Sony not able to set the precedent they were looking for, but they couldn't even prove Hotz did anything illegal.
Basically, Hotz got off with a slap on the wrist, and it's mostly because Sony's lawyers didn't have any ground to stand on in the first place, and couldn't use any of their subpoenaed internet records to prove anything at all.
Meanwhile, every other hacker out there is seeing this and knowing if Sony couldn't nab GeoHotz, then they probably couldn't nab them either. The graf_chokolo being different, as he likely did break a few laws with what he was doing.
Sony hardly owned anyone. Reading the leaked order that resulted from the settlement, Sony definitely came out on the losing end of this one with no doubt. Not only was Sony not able to set the precedent they were looking for, but they couldn't even prove Hotz did anything illegal.
Basically, Hotz got off with a slap on the wrist, and it's mostly because Sony's lawyers didn't have any ground to stand on in the first place, and couldn't use any of their subpoenaed internet records to prove anything at all.
Meanwhile, every other hacker out there is seeing this and knowing if Sony couldn't nab GeoHotz, then they probably couldn't nab them either. The graf_chokolo being different, as he likely did break a few laws with what he was doing.
@ManWithNoName
The problem here is that they're using law that is used predominately to define a reasonable period that you can get a replacement should it fail to perform as expected and using it to justify actively removing an advertised feature. The fact that they actively went out to cause hardware to "fail" makes a huge, huge difference.
Even if you don't give a shit about OtherOS, which the vast majority don't, you should still care about this as a precedent for their attitude towards consumers. The only reason they don't fuck over other features that you may have bought a PS3 for (playing blu-ray movies for example) is because it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so; clearly they have no problem with violating consumer rights of a minority to "protect" their bottom line like in this scenario.
The problem here is that they're using law that is used predominately to define a reasonable period that you can get a replacement should it fail to perform as expected and using it to justify actively removing an advertised feature. The fact that they actively went out to cause hardware to "fail" makes a huge, huge difference.
Even if you don't give a shit about OtherOS, which the vast majority don't, you should still care about this as a precedent for their attitude towards consumers. The only reason they don't fuck over other features that you may have bought a PS3 for (playing blu-ray movies for example) is because it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so; clearly they have no problem with violating consumer rights of a minority to "protect" their bottom line like in this scenario.
@ManWithNoName
The courts decide how long is reasonable on a case by case basis. Since the PS3 is a pretty expensive piece of electronic equipment with a typical life expectancy of however many years, anything shy of that due to manufacturing problems is elligible for a refund. On top of that, Sony's constant assertion that this generation of console shall see a ten year cycle supports the impression that a one-year-long lifetime of the console is unreasonable for the consumer to expect. And furthermore, with the device being compared to personal computers in terms of components and function, there's that precedant as well.
As a manufacturer I'm sure Sony have plenty rights of their own but these consumer rights have nothing to do with that. Consumer rights exist to ensure the consumer doesn't get rightly fucked when the manufacturer or retailer fail in their roles, and providing a shoddy piece of equipment or false advertising are two such failings accounted for.
The courts decide how long is reasonable on a case by case basis. Since the PS3 is a pretty expensive piece of electronic equipment with a typical life expectancy of however many years, anything shy of that due to manufacturing problems is elligible for a refund. On top of that, Sony's constant assertion that this generation of console shall see a ten year cycle supports the impression that a one-year-long lifetime of the console is unreasonable for the consumer to expect. And furthermore, with the device being compared to personal computers in terms of components and function, there's that precedant as well.
As a manufacturer I'm sure Sony have plenty rights of their own but these consumer rights have nothing to do with that. Consumer rights exist to ensure the consumer doesn't get rightly fucked when the manufacturer or retailer fail in their roles, and providing a shoddy piece of equipment or false advertising are two such failings accounted for.
follow
