AfterDawn: Tech news

Sony: Geohot fled to South America

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 23 Mar 2011 14:01 User comments (97)

Sony: Geohot fled to South America 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 is already overwhelming, SCEA has little doubt that there is much more. However, over the last several weeks. Hotz has engaged in a campaign to thwart jurisdictional discovery at every turn –regardless of whether the Court has ordered such discovery or not.

Most seriously, after Magistrate Judge Spero ordered an inspection of Hotz’s devices and ordered Hotz to appear at a deposition in California, SCEA learned that Hotz had deliberately removed integral components of his impounded hard drives prior to delivering them to a third party neutral and that Hotz is now in South America, an excuse for why he will not immediately provide the components of his hard drives as requested by the neutral. Hotz’s attempts to dodge this Court’s authority raise very serious questions.

When SCEA echoed TIG’s request that the components of the hard drives be delivered immediately, Hotz’s counsel responded that Hotz was in South America.


The situation gets even worse, as Sony proves that Geohot lied on record when he exclaimed that he did not have a PSN account:

On January 12, 2011, Hotz submitted a declaration to the Court (Docket No. 19-1) in which he made unequivocal statements on a number of topics. However, when it came to discussing the PSN account, Hotz equivocated, stating: “To the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not have a PlayStation Network account.” Hotz also provided interrogatory responses that he has refused to verify, stating that he has not accessed the PSN. Bricker Decl. ¶4.Hotz identified four PS3 Systems in his possession. Bricker Decl., ¶4, Exh. C. He explained that he had purchased one of these consoles new in February 2010 and provided the serial number for that console. Id. SCEA used that serial number to determine that on February 25, 2010, Hotz purchased the PS3 System at a Gamestop store just miles from his home. Law Decl., ¶6; Bricker Decl., ¶6, Exh. E. SCEA’s records show that the same PS3 System was used on March 10, 2010 to create a PSN account under the user name “blickmanic.” Law Decl., ¶6, Exh. A. The IP address associated with the registration is located in Glen Rock, New Jersey, where Hotz lives.

Hotz’s ownership of the “blickmaniac” account is further supported by the fact that an Internet search of the user name “blickmaniac” reveals a posting discussing the jailbreaking of cellular phones – Hotz’s original “claim to fame.” Bricker Decl., ¶7, Exh. F (“Just curious what people would pay for exclusive rights to this solution. [Motorola] Tracfone W175g unlocked and debranded. PM me.”) As discussed above, to create his PSN account, Hotz was required to first agree to the terms of the PSN User Agreement and thus he is clearly subject to personal jurisdiction in California. It is well established that a valid and enforceable forum selection clause operates as consent to personal jurisdiction in a designated forum.


Sony wants to continue its case against Hotz in San Francisco and not in New Jersey, where Hotz lives. Hotz was sued after he made code available that would give PS3 owners a chance to run homebrew on custom firmware.

Previous Next  

97 user comments

123.3.2011 14:50
lissenup3
Inactive

WOW! People killing others, burglarizing others, raping others, stealing other's identity, political corruption on a MASSIVE scale that has caused financial downfalls and poverty............and Sony can't stop wasting their F'ing time on someone that showed others how to manipulate a product they rightfully purchased.

How is this essentially any different from buying a PC with an OS and software already loaded on it to run something else that may or may not run pirated software in addition to running homemade applications????

223.3.2011 15:08
cdxanti
Inactive

Get over it Sony. You can't stop hackers their just smarter than you.


011110010110111101110101011100100010000001101101
0110111101101101

323.3.2011 15:09

What if his buddy created the account without GH's knowledge?

423.3.2011 15:21

i was thinking that or a little brother or sibling

523.3.2011 15:45

Dear Sony: Just lick your wounds and move on !
Attn. Mrguss

Hotz says: he's just enjoying spring break.
"Actually, it's true I'm in South America, on a vacation I've had planned and paid for since November. I mean, it is spring break; hacking isn't my life," he writes.
http://cnet.co/gyTOrV


"The donation money George (GoeHot) has received is being used exclusively for his legal defense. If there are any funds left after the lawsuit, George is planning to donate the money to the EFF [Electronic Frontier Foundation]."
http://go.ign.com/gRL8SS

Sony said: +13,300 unique internet addresses had downloaded the tools from Hotz’s web site in California alone.
http://goo.gl/fb/TmuHs

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:31

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

623.3.2011 15:48

...How can they PROOVE that the user was him that created the PSN account? And not a friend over at his house, etc?


Carpe Noctem

723.3.2011 16:55

Freedom has gone down the drain. The court has already given Sony the "right" to acquire IP addresses. They've obviously been following this guy's every move. I hope this guy wins the case (if it is still going on), somewhere down the line Sony invaded his privacy, hope he finds that evidence and uses it against them, but it's hard when it's deemed legal by the court for one company to acquire your IP address, but you can't acquire theirs. Sony is just in this for the money (obviously). It's BS that a multi-billion dollar corporation will try to milk every penny out of a low-income citizen. I highly doubt this guy has hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around; even then that's just peanuts to Sony.

823.3.2011 17:18

lissenup3, are you going to be a good boy or do i have to keep banning you?

923.3.2011 17:42

I'm all for personal freedom. I jailbrake phones and hacked my wii, but I also understand that both open me to being sued. It's just the risk you take when you do such a thing. But to go public with it is completly different matter. It reminds me of the LA riots in the 90's ie all the people doing interviews with the evidence in their hands.

To hack your own console is one thing, to show others how is something else entirely. Wether or not you do it for financial gain is irrelevent. And to think that someone coming after you for sercumventing the security they put in place to keep you from pirating games is a bad thing to do is just completly ludricris.

If I broke into your house and stole your TV, and then told the world how to get in to your house so they could steal some stuff. Then you'd be pretty mad.

Get real people Sony is a buisness and has share holders to protect and yes make richer. It sucks but its the truth.

Let the flaming begin...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Mar 2011 @ 17:46

“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.”
–Zen Judaism by Someone Clever

1023.3.2011 17:51

no flaming or will be banned so your choice.

1123.3.2011 17:54

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....


“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.”
–Zen Judaism by Someone Clever

1223.3.2011 18:04

I think its called a vacation...

1323.3.2011 18:10

Originally posted by lissenup3:
.........and Sony can't stop wasting their F'ing time on someone that showed others how to manipulate a product they rightfully purchased.
They may own the systen ie the hardware, but the software is still own by Sony. And wether or not you acctually did read the EULA is not Sony's problem it's YOURs especially if you decide to monkey with the software. And then to tell the whole world "Look what I did, I'm so smart." This dude (GEOHOT) has got to be one of the dumbest smart people I have ever heard of.

“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.”
–Zen Judaism by Someone Clever

1423.3.2011 18:56

The title of this articles comes close to defamation of character, it's already shown on IGN that Hotz Lawyers clarified he's only on vacation out there, and that he handed over all specified hardware asked in the court order. To say that Geohot "FLED" is entirely out of context and just plain wrong. At-least put rumored in the title...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Mar 2011 @ 18:57

1523.3.2011 19:34

Regardless of why he is in South America, going there only hurts his image. Don't cry broke to the community and then travel internationally for a vacation. Maybe he got a free ticket, maybe he's visiting family...who knows? Either way, he's involved in one of the biggest IP cases to date. He made his bed, now he should sleep in it. Even if it means staying holed up in Jersey until this all blows over.

1623.3.2011 21:11

He'll probably gonna ask for more donation for his court cases and then take another "vacation" somewhere in Asia next time.

1723.3.2011 22:27

i hope he gets what he deserves and rots for being stupid,

1823.3.2011 22:59

Don't forget, the outcome of the case is about a lot more than one hacker. A lot of people don't like george for various reasons, but remember...this case is about your rights...if he wanted out, all he would have to do is to agree to stop distributing hacks for the PS3, and the case would disappear (other than any charges relating to lies under oath).

...And I am sure that he cleaned his drives. Sony didn't get a restraining order preventing him from doing so until days after the case started...he had enough time to scrub his physical media and online accounts, and he wasn't even breaking a court order or anything. I'm sure that he deleted, zero-filled, random-filled, and then overwrote anything incriminating long before any judge said that he could not.

As for the vacation, it seems like a bad choice unless it is family related or if it was free or something...if he wanted to go on vacation, he could have gone to the venue of the trial.

1923.3.2011 23:11

Alright, I can understand and agree with the point some of you are making that this guy's stupitidy got him in the mess he's in, but to the extent that you would relish in him going to prison for it is baffling to me. Why so mean? The smart thing for him certainly would have been for him to have kept this information to himself but he didn't. He thought others would like to know what he knows so he shared it. Would you rather he and all other hackers keep their tricks to themselves? To just read stories on here about all these cool things they're doing but none offering any way for you to read up on how to attempt it yourself? I can safely say you would not. So enough already with you bloodthirsty people counting the seconds until he's brought back here to "face the music." Cause if it weren't for him and others willing to in some cases sacrifice their freedoms in order to share their expertise with everyone, the use of all those smartphones game consoles wouldn't be nearly as much fun to use. If he eventually gets punished for his actions then so be it. Sony will be the only one's that benefit though. The rest of us lose as far as I'm concerned. I will fail to see anything to cheer and clap about.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Mar 2011 @ 23:14

2023.3.2011 23:24

and yeah before it's mentioned, I'm aware of that glaring misspelling on there. No good excuse for that. The point made in the message still rings true I belive.

2124.3.2011 1:39

His picture looks like an SNL skit.

2224.3.2011 9:31
joseve
Inactive

Originally posted by cdxanti:
Get over it Sony. You can't stop hackers their just smarter than you.
if hackers were smarter, they'd know proper grammar.. its not "their", its, "theyre".

2324.3.2011 10:45

Originally posted by joseve:
Originally posted by cdxanti:
Get over it Sony. You can't stop hackers their just smarter than you.
if hackers were smarter, they'd know proper grammar.. its not "their", its, "theyre".
And if random people on news sites actually had meaningful things to say once in a while these comments sections might one day amount to more than massive waste of time.
(OP was clearly not talking about himself, and it's not "theyre" either.)

As for George, public recognition is rarely a good thing, it just made him a target for leechers, media, Sony, forum pos(t)ers..
Other than that he was a useful guy. Having the knowledge and using it productively (yes providing hacks is producing) is very rare in comparison to the millions of dumbshits who think they're entitled to everything.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Mar 2011 @ 11:09

2424.3.2011 11:22

Can someone update the article? He's in vacation. It was stated by his lawyer and by himself. I believe he's in Argentina (he's wearing a boca juniors jersey). But someone should update this with more accurate information, check psx-scene.

2524.3.2011 12:16

Originally posted by joseve:
Originally posted by cdxanti:
Get over it Sony. You can't stop hackers their just smarter than you.
if hackers were smarter, they'd know proper grammar.. its not "their", its, "theyre".
and your correction uses its instead of it's (the contraction for It Is) ... who watches the watchers?

2624.3.2011 12:21

Good luck to you Mr Hotz, I hope you show sony they cannot F people over and not expect a comeback!




To get instant assistance with Flashing / JTAG / Homebrew from experts for free! click me (Im not one of the said experts BTW)

Make poverty history, cheaper drugs NOW!

2724.3.2011 12:32

Originally posted by jrp696:
Can someone update the article? He's in vacation. It was stated by his lawyer and by himself. I believe he's in Argentina (he's wearing a boca juniors jersey). But someone should update this with more accurate information, check psx-scene.
Also, the "missing components" that sony was talking about were the drive controllers; standard parts that sony had many of. I don't know if george had an account or not...and if he lied under oath, then that was dumb...but remember that a big part of this case has to do with the fact that these agreements are not exactly legal to start with...when you can't return the system, and the contract requires you to accept it just to continue using the device you paid for, and it is not negotiable, there are some serious legal issues there.


2824.3.2011 13:38

Here here KB! Let's hope they actually explore those legalities and don't just try to railroad him.


Just my $0.02,

dEwMe

2924.3.2011 14:20

Damnit Nike ... I just paid 200 dollars for these re-re-re-re-released retro jordans with white laces...so I re-laced them with red ones.

The fact...regardless of copy protection measures ... I OWN the equipment. No different than me taking a motor off a lawn tractor and putting it on a go-cart.

If I sat and thought about all the different things created in the past say ...20 centuries...and then googled them ...and really really researched deeply ...

Everyone would find that most things created or invented came from an idea and/or creation of someone or something else.

X-rays come to mind actually. No one ever envisioned them being able to actually be such a big part of life today.

Phonograph is another. AC electricity yet another.

What most people on the side of Sony don't realize ... you can't control what you can't envision and you cannot possibly envision every possibility one product has or might end up having. Sony does not own innovation. If i create a use for PS3 that no one envisioned ..on MY machine ... they should be thankful...they don't own my creation.

If i wan't to play my legally ripped matroska blu-rays on my ps3 ..whos to say I can't create something that will allow that to happen? Why should I be forced to go buy another product just to play those movies when I have something perfectly suited to do so already?

To stop this nonsense ...sony ..charge end users 10 bucks or something and let them download some sort of homebrew app that lets end users do everything they want. I really don't believe one should even have to pay anything for this ability... but its a compromise. Then ... for those new wares or abilities that actually improve the machine and add value ... pay those who added that value. as far as piracy ...Wait for them to log onto psn with a pirated game and ban the machine from your network. The end.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Mar 2011 @ 14:24

3024.3.2011 17:20

I agree with trainmstr, if they did not remove other os, and added some form of homebrew feature - which i might as is unneccessary with other OS - then this s**t storm would have never gained momentum. If they had given the end user what they paid for, then most of this would not have happened (for a while yet atleast)

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 24 Mar 2011 @ 17:21

3124.3.2011 19:11

Originally posted by o0cynix0o:
I'm all for personal freedom. I jailbrake phones and hacked my wii, but I also understand that both open me to being sued. It's just the risk you take when you do such a thing. But to go public with it is completly different matter. It reminds me of the LA riots in the 90's ie all the people doing interviews with the evidence in their hands.

To hack your own console is one thing, to show others how is something else entirely. Wether or not you do it for financial gain is irrelevent. And to think that someone coming after you for sercumventing the security they put in place to keep you from pirating games is a bad thing to do is just completly ludricris.

If I broke into your house and stole your TV, and then told the world how to get in to your house so they could steal some stuff. Then you'd be pretty mad.

Get real people Sony is a buisness and has share holders to protect and yes make richer. It sucks but its the truth.

Let the flaming begin...
Yes, Sony is a business producing a product, but when you purchase a product the producer normally has no further control over what you do with that product. For instance, some years ago, I had a tube type TV set. I converted that TV set from a receiver to a 90 watt radio transmitter.

Sony can ban modified sets from accessing their on-line games, or products for that mater and pirating games or software is illegal. No one, or hardly any one argues their right to do prevent that. However, it has never AFAIK "in the past" been illegal to modify a radio, TV set, or computer to make it do what you want or to show others how to do the same as long as the results do not do something prohibited by law, not the what the manufacturer says.

Now if Sony *leased" the hardware to the user and licensed its use, THEN they have complete rights to said hardware. To do otherwise (which the court did) is counter to established rights.

Even restricting the ability to pay a game on a specific piece of hardware is pushing the limits of legality, but it is done.

Courts reinterpret laws differently with the times and judges, or at least some appear to lean either to the Liberal or Conservative sides.



Airman

3225.3.2011 0:59

Originally posted by airman:

Now if Sony *leased" the hardware to the user and licensed its use, THEN they have complete rights to said hardware. To do otherwise (which the court did) is counter to established rights.


You make a good point there, although you didn't actually make it...

If you lease a car, the manufacturer cannot limit the places that you go with it. You can even take it to a race track (although your insurance might not cover you there). The manufacturer can't even limit modifications to the car; they can end the lease and demand that you purchase the car, but they cannot sue you for it (unless you cannot afford to purchase the car).

Sony is saying that our purchases give us fewer rights than we get with a lease...and that is why I can't buy an NGP no matter how much I want one, even if they make a NGPhone version...a purchase from sony isn't even a lease; it is a rental.


3325.3.2011 2:50

"KillerBug", All I can do is agree with you on that. I don't understand how they can get the courts to go along with their stance.


Airman

3425.3.2011 3:14

Originally posted by trainmstr:
Damnit Nike ... I just paid 200 dollars for these re-re-re-re-released retro jordans with white laces...so I re-laced them with red ones.

The fact...regardless of copy protection measures ... I OWN the equipment. No different than me taking a motor off a lawn tractor and putting it on a go-cart.

If I sat and thought about all the different things created in the past say ...20 centuries...and then googled them ...and really really researched deeply ...

Everyone would find that most things created or invented came from an idea and/or creation of someone or something else.

X-rays come to mind actually. No one ever envisioned them being able to actually be such a big part of life today.

Phonograph is another. AC electricity yet another.

What most people on the side of Sony don't realize ... you can't control what you can't envision and you cannot possibly envision every possibility one product has or might end up having. Sony does not own innovation. If i create a use for PS3 that no one envisioned ..on MY machine ... they should be thankful...they don't own my creation.
1716 PS3's turned into an Air Force supercomputer:
http://goo.gl/fb/G1Tyg

In Other News:
GeoHot Has Not Escaped! He Will Be Back To Jailbreak Sony Xperia PLAY.
http://t.co/tWp0QZd
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 23:56

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

3525.3.2011 12:37
Anonymous23
Unverified new user

Good for Sony. This incident just shows what a lying piece of trash this "geohot" is. This loser lost us PS3 Linux. Plenty of people had the capabilities to 'hack' the PS3, but only this garbage had low enough morale standards to publicly distribute it.

As for you pathetic cheap morons supporting him - you, and this trash of society, made an agreement with Sony. If you refuse to accept that agreement, you shouldn't have bought a PS3 or returned it right after you got it.

3625.3.2011 13:40

WOW ...sony is PATHETIC to the CORE. Doesnt sony have anything else to do? Geohot must have "FU#K" one of the sony execs daughter and not because of a hacked PS3.

3725.3.2011 14:01
GeohotFanboy
Unverified new user

Originally posted by Mysttic:
The title of this articles comes close to defamation of character, it's already shown on IGN that Hotz Lawyers clarified he's only on vacation out there, and that he handed over all specified hardware asked in the court order. To say that Geohot "FLED" is entirely out of context and just plain wrong. At-least put rumored in the title...
Huh? This is one of the dumbest posts of all the comments. The title clearly says "Sony:"

Originally posted by Anonymous23:
Good for Sony. This incident just shows what a lying piece of trash this "geohot" is. This loser lost us PS3 Linux. Plenty of people had the capabilities to 'hack' the PS3, but only this garbage had low enough morale standards to publicly distribute it.

As for you pathetic cheap morons supporting him - you, and this trash of society, made an agreement with Sony. If you refuse to accept that agreement, you shouldn't have bought a PS3 or returned it right after you got it.
You are just a sad, sad man. How much does Sony pay?

Originally posted by KillerBug:

If you lease a car, the manufacturer cannot limit the places that you go with it. You can even take it to a race track (although your insurance might not cover you there). The manufacturer can't even limit modifications to the car; they can end the lease and demand that you purchase the car, but they cannot sue you for it (unless you cannot afford to purchase the car).
Good point.

3825.3.2011 14:47
lissenup3
Inactive

Originally posted by ddp:
lissenup3, are you going to be a good boy or do i have to keep banning you?
I've been a good boy everyday and said nothing bad before. That was made clear when no one honored my request for the article and statement I "supposedly made" that was offensive.

When your readers make stupid, biased, prejudiced comments, I just call 'em out. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. Propagating stupidity and ignorance is shameful and needs to be stopped at the source.

Next time you ban, provide the example of the reason.......otherwise, you're just flexing your own opinion by stifling mine. Common of the FInnish though.

3925.3.2011 15:06

hope they crush this guy.

4025.3.2011 15:14
lissenup3
Inactive

Originally posted by o0cynix0o:
Originally posted by lissenup3:
.........and Sony can't stop wasting their F'ing time on someone that showed others how to manipulate a product they rightfully purchased.
They may own the systen ie the hardware, but the software is still own by Sony. And wether or not you acctually did read the EULA is not Sony's problem it's YOURs especially if you decide to monkey with the software. And then to tell the whole world "Look what I did, I'm so smart." This dude (GEOHOT) has got to be one of the dumbest smart people I have ever heard of.
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". It's a legal loop hole and you better not be supporting the practicality of EULAs or else you're an............
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 15:17

4125.3.2011 15:31

Originally posted by cdxanti:
Get over it Sony. You can't stop hackers their just smarter than you.
their = ownership
they're = they are

I'll bet even Sony knows this.

In all seriousness, it's just nicer when people are clear in their communication. When they're not, it's harder to understand what they're saying.

side note: its = ownership; it's = it is.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 15:33

4225.3.2011 15:43

Originally posted by KillerBug:
If you lease a car, the manufacturer cannot limit the places that you go with it. You can even take it to a race track (although your insurance might not cover you there). The manufacturer can't even limit modifications to the car;
Good point. but you didn't complete it.

Actually, the government can make your modifications illegal and fine you real money. They can also force you to remove the modification or face confiscation. Not only that, but if your modifications cause damage to person or property, you will face possible jail time. Now Sony is not the government, no doubt. But Sony didn't make what Geohot did illegal. That was actually the government. Geohot caused monetary damage to PS3. And caused every PS3 to lose value, thereby damaging all legit PS3 owners. (just the ones who don't give a fart's ass about other OS).

Oh yes, I must be a Sony employee (sarcasm intended for the poster who keeps using that as some kind of a slam. LOL)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Mar 2011 @ 15:46

4325.3.2011 15:48

It's nice that Geohot was able to still go on his planned vacation.
He probably would not have been able to do this if he'd had to spend his own money on his legal defense.

Honestly, the ethics of this are amazing. But it's already apparent that he doesn't score high on the ethics scale.

4425.3.2011 18:31

Originally posted by brockie:
hope they crush this guy.

I am willing to wager 3,000.00 that this guy never does a day in jail as far as sentencing.


This is superman

4525.3.2011 18:52

Citizens were never asked whether they wanted the change to laws that allowed an object they bought to be still owned by the corporation they bought it from. The massive changes to intellectual property legislation that have been made, were most frequently achieved using back door methods such as free trade agrements. Amerikans should read up on all their property and political rights signed away in the nafta agreement. That model was repeated around the world during the 90's by slick willie and his crew of crooks strong arming other governments into invoking their own DMCA's.
If we didn't agree to it (hell in most cases we weren't even told it was happening) we are not bound by those laws, no matter how many puerile eulas they try to get us to click. Because those eulas are meant to be a contract. A contract is only reasonable when made by two equal parties who can choose whetheer to agree. A purchaser (who has usually already paid up in most cases) has no choice but to agree to the eula if he/she wants to enjoy the property right he/she obtained by paying for the goods.

I realise lawyers could run rings around this simple logic, but that doesn't show the correctness ofthe law it shows how divorced that modern law has become from ordinary citizens rights and responsibilities.

4625.3.2011 19:09

Originally posted by hastypete:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
If you lease a car, the manufacturer cannot limit the places that you go with it. You can even take it to a race track (although your insurance might not cover you there). The manufacturer can't even limit modifications to the car;
Good point. but you didn't complete it.

Actually, the government can make your modifications illegal and fine you real money. They can also force you to remove the modification or face confiscation. Not only that, but if your modifications cause damage to person or property, you will face possible jail time. Now Sony is not the government, no doubt. But Sony didn't make what Geohot did illegal. That was actually the government. Geohot caused monetary damage to PS3. And caused every PS3 to lose value, thereby damaging all legit PS3 owners. (just the ones who don't give a fart's ass about other OS).
Oh yes, I must be a Sony employee (sarcasm intended for the poster who keeps using that as some kind of a slam. LOL)
Did he devalue the PS3 or add flexibility and value for the end users?

As for the car, if I purchase, or lease I can do any thing I want to the car including changing out the engine to a blown hemihead Chrysler if it'd fit. I may or may not be able to legally drive it on the street depending on mods, but as I don't live in CA about the only thing I have to worry about is how loud it is and of course how I drive it. Here the the tires do have to have a certain % covered to prevent them from throwing *stuff* onto other cars if you are going to drive it on the road. I can even pull ever bit of anti pollution stuff. Yes with a lease I'd have to buy the car after all that.

Responsibility belongs to the driver and owner whether the car is modified or not.

Airman

4725.3.2011 20:12

The point I was trying to make is Take the PS3 and shoot it full of holes if you want...it's yours. You just can't alter the software...that's not yours, Sony still owns the software.


“Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this... and attaining enlightenment is the least of your problems.”
–Zen Judaism by Someone Clever

4825.3.2011 21:44

lissenup3, i'm not finnish as i'm canadian.

4926.3.2011 2:16

Ya know if this sets any precedent(like the judge allowing reverse class action case) the public needs their right to brains revoked....


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

5026.3.2011 13:08

Originally posted by airman:
Originally posted by hastypete:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
If you lease a car, the manufacturer cannot limit the places that you go with it. You can even take it to a race track (although your insurance might not cover you there). The manufacturer can't even limit modifications to the car;
Good point. but you didn't complete it.

Actually, the government can make your modifications illegal and fine you real money. They can also force you to remove the modification or face confiscation. Not only that, but if your modifications cause damage to person or property, you will face possible jail time. Now Sony is not the government, no doubt. But Sony didn't make what Geohot did illegal. That was actually the government. Geohot caused monetary damage to PS3. And caused every PS3 to lose value, thereby damaging all legit PS3 owners. (just the ones who don't give a fart's ass about other OS).
Oh yes, I must be a Sony employee (sarcasm intended for the poster who keeps using that as some kind of a slam. LOL)
Did he devalue the PS3 or add flexibility and value for the end users?

As for the car, if I purchase, or lease I can do any thing I want to the car including changing out the engine to a blown hemihead Chrysler if it'd fit. I may or may not be able to legally drive it on the street depending on mods, but as I don't live in CA about the only thing I have to worry about is how loud it is and of course how I drive it. Here the the tires do have to have a certain % covered to prevent them from throwing *stuff* onto other cars if you are going to drive it on the road. I can even pull ever bit of anti pollution stuff. Yes with a lease I'd have to buy the car after all that.

Responsibility belongs to the driver and owner whether the car is modified or not.
The owner being NOT you, since its a leased car?

And unless I am mistaken, the PS3 issue is about the software rather then the hardware... and most software comes with a specific clause to prevent modification/reverse engineering. You may own the hardware, but the software is provided on a medium to you on the understanding you accept the licensing agreement that goes with it. What you actually OWN is the right to use the software (via the agreement should you accept it) but the software itself is still OWNED by the copyright holder.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 13:12

5126.3.2011 13:24

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 its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 13:25

5226.3.2011 13:36

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

5326.3.2011 13:54

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?

5426.3.2011 15:49

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 message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 15:57

This is superman

5526.3.2011 15:51
alexeemo
Inactive

It doesn't change the fact that the

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?

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.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 15:54

PSN ID alexeemo, Level 10, 484 Trophies and counting

5626.3.2011 19:40

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.

5726.3.2011 20:02

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.

5826.3.2011 22:02

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 message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 22:05

This is superman

5926.3.2011 22:04

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

6026.3.2011 22:16

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!

6126.3.2011 22:24

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

6226.3.2011 22:28

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.

6326.3.2011 22:35

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 its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 22:39

6426.3.2011 23:19

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

6526.3.2011 23:22

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 message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Mar 2011 @ 23:22

This is superman

6627.3.2011 0:07

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 its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Mar 2011 @ 0:07

6727.3.2011 3:48

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 its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Mar 2011 @ 3:50

6827.3.2011 10:33

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

6927.3.2011 10:34

Double quote

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Mar 2011 @ 10:35

This is superman

7027.3.2011 17:28

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!

7127.3.2011 18:41

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/

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Mar 2011 @ 18:56

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

7227.3.2011 18:48

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!

7327.3.2011 18:59

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?

7427.3.2011 18:59

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.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 27 Mar 2011 @ 19:00

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

7527.3.2011 19:08

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.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

7627.3.2011 19:36

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
Sorry for the repost I tend to finish a post after I endt it acouple times LOL
No problem, I done a few of those myself in this very thread. Am also guilty of hijacking threads (again, as here).

Quote:
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.
Are you saying now that a company should not be able to enforce their agreements unless there are - say - 5 alternatives..? 6..? 7..? What number of alternatives should be the minimum until an agreement should be enforced?

Though I don't claim to religiously follow IP/console based news stories, I can't recall X-Box or Wii users being hounded to THIS degree regarding reverse engineering or hacking of their consoles. Maybe the agreements for X-Box or Wii is more favourable then PS3, or maybe people are just going out their way to hack PS3 because they are pissed off that Sony took out the rather excellent ability to install other OSs? I don't know... Whatever. Now while I admit its far from conclusive, if I am right regarding the more relaxed X-Box and Wii, then use them and modify if you wish with less fear of reprisals.

Quote:
It dose not matter if you buy one or not

Rubbish... You can't break the PS3 agreement if you don't buy or own a PS3. I would say that's a pretty fundamental concept.

Quote:
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.
The choice where you don't accept the agreement does not come with a bald grumpy .... etc!

7727.3.2011 19:54

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
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..
There is the ultimate freedom of choice you seem to have forgot. If your unhappy with rotten fruit... grow your own!

None of the companies mentioned or inferred sprang up with a magic wand. Why not create your own console and waiver your rights to enforce an agreement as you see fit.

Impractical? No money? No time? No space? <insert excuse here>?

So your unwilling to put in the decades of effort the founders of these companies put into developing their goods... and you won't ever know what its like to have people spit in your face when you try to protect your investment.

7827.3.2011 21:09

After reading all of the posts. WOW!
E.U.L.A.'s are wrong! They are supposed to be a contract. The only problem here is they are not. Under contract law. All contracts are negotiable. You can't negotiate an E.U.L.A. It is follow said corporations rules or you can't use the product you lawfully purchased. I apologize if this offends anyone but if I have no avenue to negotiate. I WILL BREAK ANY AND EVERY E.U.L.A. that I come across. (I probably have anyway) Because I have no choice to agree to their terms or not use it. So I will use it as I see fit because I had no way of negotiating the contract. Said contract is null and void if both parties can't contribute to said binding agreement.

7928.3.2011 0:40

Originally posted by MrZoolook:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
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..
There is the ultimate freedom of choice you seem to have forgot. If your unhappy with rotten fruit... grow your own!

None of the companies mentioned or inferred sprang up with a magic wand. Why not create your own console and waiver your rights to enforce an agreement as you see fit.

Impractical? No money? No time? No space? <insert excuse here>?

So your unwilling to put in the decades of effort the founders of these companies put into developing their goods... and you won't ever know what its like to have people spit in your face when you try to protect your investment.

So it comes down to consume or be very unpractical.

Sorry but you can only have one practical way to deal with CP issues and that is to limit monetary flow around distribution to to legal and licensed operations. Anything remaining(minus like 70% of current illicitly funded file sharing) is practically the realm of fans,students of life and creative people(fan fiction). Hardware falls under patent law and you ca make up shit to protect it the only protection that you have and should have is hacking into the server.

Anything else goes beyond fair and equal rights into draconian to protect those in power.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

8028.3.2011 5:47

I wonder if Sony will sue car owners if they use Non Sony speakers with their stereo unit? Court papers will state "violation of product terms and conditions. The documentation states that the stereo should be used in conjunction with Sony speakers". LOL

This case is actually quite worrying and dangerous because Sony will apply tough rules to all their products for law suite purposes. The consumer is officially done for! It would have been friendlier and cheaper to create a Homebrew channel for users to develop safe "screened" software for all to use freely.

I really hope Microsoft get the hardware right and the reliability in their next console to put Sony down a few pegs. Or Sega comes back to whoop Sony's cranium.


Trin - Making Digital Waves

8128.3.2011 11:17

Originally posted by MrZoolook:

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.


What exactly are you referring to? The society which I have projected? I do not have to project this society, it exist in every borough, in every state in every country...leave this be. I suspect that my position gives me the ability to make an authoritative judgment in this area where as I am 95% sure that yours does not. If you want to become a nomad, have at it. Lack of existence is where many societies are headed, give it 200 years or so.

Quote:

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.


Fair enough, I will grant you that if you ACTUALLY do this. You are rare, say, 20% of the population will do this unless it is considering a substantial purchase, say house, car, but as we know, many do not even do it then...agree? I think what you may have missed in my rant, considering this specific tidbit, is that many (especially considering a pS3) could care less what the EULA says. And many would laugh at you and me both if we stated that you cannot do xyz to/on for the PS3 if you agree to purchase it. And, honestly, I would not blame them either. It all goes back to the severity of the breach. If the punishment is serious enough, people listen; however, with SONY it is not. So, i.e. laughter ensues.

Quote:

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.

They can try to enforce whatever, you are correct here. As my point stands, it will not deter any mischief concerning the PS3. You are barking up the wrong tree with many of your responses and type of responses because I have yet to mention that SONY does not have the right to protect their intellectual rights.



Quote:

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.
I am not judging everyone, just you. You should not sign anything which you do not agree with; you are right.

However, many hackers look at it as i stated before. The severity of the punishment holds little weight, so they laugh at it. It's akin to not being able to consume alcoholic beverages under the age of 21, usually, this is shrugged off. It has nothing to do with a realization after a problem arises. Most hackers KNOW BEFOREHAND that they are breaking the law. It does not matter. Again, you are barking up the wrong tree with your statement. Direct your argument at someone who thinks if you sign a contract, you have the right to break it or blindly signs a contract. I never stated that was my position. I did state that I laughed at the EULA and ignored it though that does not say that i feel i have a lawful RIGHT to break it.




This is superman

8228.3.2011 11:26

Quote:
MrZoolook:::So your unwilling to put in the decades of effort the founders of these companies put into developing their goods... and you won't ever know what its like to have people spit in your face when you try to protect your investment.
Are you trying to make a joke? A debater you are, a comedian, you are not.

So you seriously believe that SONY and MICROSOFT, are successful due to their creations being %100 original and not one iota of it being stolen? Excuse me, borrowed as they have so eloquently put it. They have done excellent at perfecting stolen ideas...i will give you that one.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 28 Mar 2011 @ 11:28

This is superman

8328.3.2011 11:31

Originally posted by MrZoolook:


There is the ultimate freedom of choice you seem to have forgot. If your unhappy with rotten fruit... grow your own!


Or be forced to eat the rotten fruit, or choose to escape the bonds and go without the fruit. Seems like a great choice there...why on earth would a person even argue.

This is superman

8428.3.2011 11:35

So did SONY say that this guy "FLED" to south africa? Those are terms that are usually used to describe someone or something leaving without haste in order to avoid something forthcoming.

Sounds like a bit of defamation of character.


This is superman

8528.3.2011 11:35

Originally posted by adre02:
Originally posted by MrZoolook:


There is the ultimate freedom of choice you seem to have forgot. If your unhappy with rotten fruit... grow your own!


Or be forced to eat the rotten fruit, or choose to escape the bonds and go without the fruit. Seems like a great choice there...why on earth would a person even argue.
That is how it really works and people who think there is real choice in it or politics need are the pure definition of sane and mundane... because insanity is normal.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

8628.3.2011 15:24

GUIDE: How To Log-In To PSN with Banned PS3:

http://t.co/berMBmj


Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

8729.3.2011 14:02

Originally posted by lissenup3:
WOW! People killing others, burglarizing others, raping others, stealing other's identity, political corruption on a MASSIVE scale that has caused financial downfalls and poverty............and Sony can't stop wasting their F'ing time on someone that showed others how to manipulate a product they rightfully purchased.

How is this essentially any different from buying a PC with an OS and software already loaded on it to run something else that may or may not run pirated software in addition to running homemade applications????
This is the dumbest thing I read today... What does raping, killing, burglarizing have anything to do with Sony? Wasting money? Certainly! But so do the rest of us... Wasting time, wasting money on things we don't need, on things harmful to mother Earth... Why can't you spend that kind of energy on something that's constructive then? Because it's in your interest to do what you want to do.

As to how's this any different from running pirated software on PC... Well, other than Sony is making a big scene at the moment, not much difference.

8830.3.2011 0:06

Originally posted by adre02:
So did SONY say that this guy "FLED" to south africa? Those are terms that are usually used to describe someone or something leaving without haste in order to avoid something forthcoming.

From what I understand, he has gone on a pre-booked holiday...

Quote:
Sounds like a bit of defamation of character.

The phrase "No news is good news" springs to mind. I would also suspect embellishment by media headline makers and not Sony.


894.4.2011 4:27

4-05-2011
Next Target Of Anonymous Is Sony:

http://goo.gl/fb/neHG3

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Apr 2011 @ 4:31

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

904.4.2011 5:11

I really hope SEGA pays close attention to this. It might be a good time to get revenge on the Playstation brand by re-introducing the Dreamcast (Dreamcast 2 with Other OS and Homebrew!!

LOL

I bet the plonkers rest on their laurels and miss out on a golden opportunity.


Trin - Making Digital Waves

9117.4.2011 21:45

Wow that's a lot of comments... Bottom line, if you don't like the EULA, why are you purchasing the product? sony products are not essential and there are alternatives.
That being said, go George go ! Head to south america and become the digital Zoro that will wage war on sony for ripping off so many customers.

9217.4.2011 22:40

I haven't purchased a Sony product since the their Root Kit slipping it to the customers and they got off without even having to address all the computers than had to be completely reloaded at the consumers expense. Of course their attitude toward the "uneducated" customers just added to my opinion.

Oh yah, they did give out replacement CDs when they should have had to pay for reloading all of those computers they screwed up.

OTOH many of these EULAs that allow the publisher to change the terms any time they want would not hold up in few courts outside of California.

9317.4.2011 22:50

Don't forget they reserve the right to change the EULA at any time without telling the customer.


Airman

9419.4.2011 4:23

Originally posted by seegee:
Wow that's a lot of comments... Bottom line, if you don't like the EULA, why are you purchasing the product? sony products are not essential and there are alternatives.
That being said, go George go ! Head to south america and become the digital Zoro that will wage war on sony for ripping off so many customers.
Just wait until companies start slapping Eula's to food and domestic products claiming they have the right to raid your cupboards at anytime due to the software used to design and print the labels on your items. Ha ha ha....
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Apr 2011 @ 4:24

Trin - Making Digital Waves

9519.4.2011 9:54

Originally posted by TrinUK:
Originally posted by seegee:
Wow that's a lot of comments... Bottom line, if you don't like the EULA, why are you purchasing the product? sony products are not essential and there are alternatives.
That being said, go George go ! Head to south america and become the digital Zoro that will wage war on sony for ripping off so many customers.
Just wait until companies start slapping Eula's to food and domestic products claiming they have the right to raid your cupboards at anytime due to the software used to design and print the labels on your items. Ha ha ha....
I don't find that funny because there are psychos out there do that to the food/water items we consume. Remember the incident where this guy used syringe to puncher those water bottles in the supermarket? Craps like that scared the heck out everybody. With PSN from Sony, the worse case is you can't play games or watch movies/shows online. With food items, people can die from tampering (hacking?). So, don't even try to use that kind of analogy and you know what? I don't mind if the FDA comes to my house raid the tampered food items just because someone violated EULA. I know I won't tamper with my food, end of discussion.

9619.4.2011 10:38

Originally posted by Gnawnivek:
Originally posted by TrinUK:
Originally posted by seegee:
Wow that's a lot of comments... Bottom line, if you don't like the EULA, why are you purchasing the product? sony products are not essential and there are alternatives.
That being said, go George go ! Head to south america and become the digital Zoro that will wage war on sony for ripping off so many customers.
Just wait until companies start slapping Eula's to food and domestic products claiming they have the right to raid your cupboards at anytime due to the software used to design and print the labels on your items. Ha ha ha....
I don't find that funny because there are psychos out there do that to the food/water items we consume. Remember the incident where this guy used syringe to puncher those water bottles in the supermarket? Craps like that scared the heck out everybody. With PSN from Sony, the worse case is you can't play games or watch movies/shows online. With food items, people can die from tampering (hacking?). So, don't even try to use that kind of analogy and you know what? I don't mind if the FDA comes to my house raid the tampered food items just because someone violated EULA. I know I won't tamper with my food, end of discussion.

I agree about the water incident, that was very serious but comment wasnt in regards to that incident. We are not far off from things getting real bad. Monsanto adding patents to seeds is evidence of this. Then Sony claiming we dont really own our products along with others? Its just a matter of time before we get there!

Trin - Making Digital Waves

9719.4.2011 14:09

LOL, I didn't know about the Monsanto seeds, but after reading it, it's ridiculous and not funny.

http://www.politicolnews.com/pubpat-sues-monsanto-on-gmo-patents/

Oh my, what the world is coming to...


Peace!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive