Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Back on Digg
4081 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
Waheed Akhtar
2739 Followers
Super Saiyan
1769 Followers
Away for a while
3984 Followers
Digging slowy, medical problem
14445 Followers
morningDigger
1022 Followers
ted ricklend
934 Followers
diggericonMar 19, 2011
He said you can't play pirated games. If you or i or anyone wants to get some custom apps on a ps3 they should be able to. As long as he doesn't support piracy, i support him and the jailbreak.
ajajadudeMar 19, 2011
It doesn't matter if you support piracy or not if you're opening the door for people to play pirated games.
travelsonicMar 20, 2011
So?
Loads of things enable other crimes, and are perfectly legal, or acceptable because of perfectly legal or acceptable uses. A gun can be used to murder people, but guns aren't outlawed. Yeah, it is cliché, but I think still holds true
ajajadudeMar 20, 2011
Does anyone know a single person who's used the breaking of console security do anything but play games they didn't pay for? While I've only known a few people to exploit console hacks and modifications, every single one of them did it so they didn't have to actually buy their games. Same goes for the PSP. In fact, when the PSP was first out, everyone I knew who owned one didn't buy their games.
And a gun has only ONE purpose: to kill. The gun wasn't created for anything but killing. Until a hacked console can be used to defend yourself from danger, then you can compare it to owning a gun.
plutonium96Mar 20, 2011
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html
polyp2000Mar 21, 2011
Yep ... me ... (My PS3 isnt hacked - im waiting for the right moment to do that ..) But I have a stack of games i paid for and Im happy to continue to do so. However I did hack my PSP for homebrew, i still have a stack of legit , payed for games. When the CFW scene is mature enough i will most likely give it a try - but not for piracy - to restore the features of the console I paid for but Sony stole from me.
The sad thing about the issue with the PS3 is that Sony have basically removed advertised features from the console, and while hackers were slowly chipping away at the consoles security there wasnt really a determined effort. The removal of otherOS which was a useful feature did nothing but attack the community which only made them more determined to crack the system.
I also beleive that if you paid for and own something it is yours do do with as you please. I think in that case - if you are using software / code that Sony cannot vouch for- then its also ok for them to block you from the network - that has an impact on other people and the integrity of your product. What is not acceptable is removing features, or taking people to court for experimenting with their own hardware.
Sony absolutely brought this on themselves and have really alienated a percentage of their loyal customer base.
I have owned all of Sony's consoles at some point - but now I really am in a quandry as to who to go with when the Next Gen comes. Microsoft dont have a good track record either and Nintendo's Software library really does not excite me.
Sony screwed up big time and there is no getting away with that fact. I am without question on Geohots side with this one. I hope the jury will be too.
neotechniMar 20, 2011
he did enable piracy though
so he mislead the courts by claiming he didnt
idknowMar 20, 2011
when a man buys a car, he can do anything to it, upto destroying it. Why doesnt Geohot have that kind of ownership in his game-console that he modified?
isuzu14bMar 20, 2011
F**K SONY!!!
myztryMar 20, 2011
"Sony implores that George Hotz was aware of, and agreed to, the terms of using the Sony SDK."
That's the problem with these pseudo contracts that rely on programs to act as agent for absentee parties. There is no proof of acceptance or identification of the parties claimed to have entered an agreement. These are fundamental concepts of contracts which fail to be met.
It's even more of a joke when minors are routinely claimed to be bound to agreements despite the fact that they legally can't be as they are under the age of majority.
Services ranging from the Playstation Network, Xbox live to Facebook have a very high proportion of customers who simply can not be bound despite the pretense. It's not a case of the entities not knowing their customers are not of the age of majority to enter contracts. This fact is routinely disclosed.
When a company implores that an agreement be deemed, it does so because they know that have not met the obligations of proof of acceptance. They are asking for the law to be ignored according to their own whim.
Contracts of supply exist for the scenario with the terms these entities want but they don't utilize them. They want the ease of Government deemed retail sales agreements where everything is a commodity with the rights restrictions of a contract of supply.
I just can't feel sorry for entities that want their cake, and to eat it too. Either leave them as commodities encumbered with rights of actual law, or supply them under a supply agreement after the agreement has been entered according to contract law. This would require empowering retailers (actual people) to act as agents.
idknowMar 20, 2011
Myztry: you wrote ``It's even more of a joke when minors are routinely claimed to be bound to agreements despite the fact that they legally can't be as they are under the age of majority.'' But a child who has attained the age of awareness (I forget the approved term) can be party to contract with an ability of avoidance and other caveats. The law of fraud is always present. That is what courts around the country have written for a long time.
Please excuse me if this isnt clear but it is truth. be well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
myztryMar 20, 2011
I am talking generally as the "rule of thumb." since rarely can remedy be sought against a minor using contract law. If proof of acceptance can be proffered than the point is rather moot anyway.
(s**t, I'm an Australian an theoretically I can be beheaded by the Queen's authority. If you want to get into side issues then you're clutching for straws out in Pandora's box.)
idknowMar 20, 2011
sorry, but it's obvious that you're making your own law as you go. I cannot argue with an unarmed man. all law descended from the british legal system (aka common law; Canada, usa, .oz, India, etc) can recogise that a child can make agreements and be party to a contract; but you dont even know that. The problem is that the subsequent commercial system (UCC, uniform commercial code, qv) allegedly subsumes common law. But it doesnt and no one knows due to lack of education.
Sorry, i cant clutch. I already have both hands fully of truth.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
travelsonicMar 20, 2011
"but it's obvious that you're making your own law"
[citation needed]
idknowMar 20, 2011
i havent published my personal wit yet. pls stand by. :)
All of his mistakes and presumptions which we're discussin
woollymittensMar 20, 2011
Should Sony lose, they can just buy some more laws using "campaign contributions".
langfordMar 20, 2011
It's a sad day when people are going to court over how people play with a children's toy. This never happened with Mr. Potato head.
neotechniMar 20, 2011
you cant hack mr potato head to steal things for you
ajajadudeMar 20, 2011
Don't think I haven't tried.
polyp2000Mar 21, 2011
The rumour that is going around that Geohot received a large donation from microsoft is nonsense. I have seen no real hard evidence of this. Geohot winning this case is in no way of benefit to microsoft. A win would basically set a precident for any similar happenings on microsofts console. The 360 is already cracked open and has been for some time.
No on this one - its actually in Microsofts best interests that Sony win this case - even if they are rivals.
nicoappzMay 18, 2011
has anyone heard anything about kittyra1n?