PlayStation 3 Hacking Lawsuit Hits a Snag

[Athinira]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

 

[JDKJ]

Sugar coat it all you want, it's fucking piracy.

Why do you think custom firmware exists for PSPs? Just to play custom content? Don't make me laugh. It's to download games for free, you know it is. Sony knows it is too. That's why they are suing.

No it's not "fucking piracy". It's fucking FREEDOM to do what you want with a hardware product you purchased that is within the law. That some people might use it outside of the law is besides the issue. Period. The DMCA recently allowed jailbreaking of cellphones for the same reason, even though it's estimated that 80% of paid applications on smartphones are pirated.

Also you are misinformed. Every major console in the last decade with the exception of the PlayStation 2 was hacked with the primary purpose of running Linux or Homebrew. Piracy was just a sideeffect. It might be the most POPULAR sideeffect, but that still doesn't change the original reason for why the console was hacked.

No, it's not. And even if it is, it really shouldn't be.

When you buy hardware, you are buying permission to use it. You are not buying the console itself. Thus, what you can do with it is limited. Especially limited against jailbreaking and homebrew.

This gives companies the control necessary to continue creating software for it.

Good lord, I thought you were being sarcastic until I read the later posts. People actually buy that crap? That whole "license" excuse tends to get thrown out in court. Actually, I'm hoping this case will be another strike against it -- notice that the judge doesn't seem too keen on the "but he agreed to it in the EULA" excuse. It sickens me to see that so many consumers are taking the side of the people writing those unconscionably restrictive agreements.

Yes, they are unconscionable and horribly one-sided and intended to protect the manufacturer and screw the consumer. No doubt. But that apparently doesn't mean that they're not enforceable. Over time and by and large, they've proven themselves to be most enforceable. And most of them never see the inside of a real courtroom because most of them provide for binding arbitration.

If the consumers were really interested in not getting stuck with a jacked-up EULA, then they'd be well advised to tell the console makers to piss off. But, having bought the console and signed on to the EULA, ain't a lot of sympathy out there for all that post-sale bitching and moaning.

Any sources on that? Because Vernor V. Autodesk is a good example of what I'm talking about. I have a sneaking suspicion that any out of court settlements occurred because the consumers couldn't afford the legal fees involved. And a large part of the reason these things tend to get thrown out of court is the consumer doesn't have any room to tell the company to "piss off" as you put it -- they either agree, or they now own a very expensive paperweight, despite the fact that they couldn't read the EULA before buying it, which is itself a reason that EULAs tend to get thrown out in court. Also, the DMCA was a terrible law brought about because congress is more beholden to big business these days than it is to the voter, but that's neither here nor there as far as enforcement goes.

Edit: Looks like that one was overturned on appeal, although there's another appeal in the works.

As I read your post and until I got to your edit, I was a-wondering why you were citing to the Autodesk case in support of the proposition that end user license agreements tend not to be enforced. Because the Ninth Circuit came to the exact opposition conclusion: if there is a license -- and not an outright sale -- afoot, then the terms of the EULA control -- usually so as to screw the consumer.

That you didn't read the EULA before agreeing to it and assuming it was conspicuously presented for all to see is absolutely no valid basis to avoid its terms. Trust me, you try that argument in court and you'll get quickly laughed out of court. Caveat emptor (i.e., "let the buyer beware").

And don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of a EULA. But to say that they aren't enforceable is to misrepresent the case. Perhaps they shouldn't be enforced but, unfortunately, they are generally enforced.

And I'm not seeing why the consumer can't walk away from the deal (i.e., tell the manufacturer to "piss off"). No one has to agree with the terms of a EULA. If you don't agree with the terms as proposed before the deal is consummated, then don't do the deal. Keep your money in your pocket. Or, if it's an Autodesk-like case and you can't read the EULA terms until after you've made the purchase and ripped opened the shrink-warp, then take the shit back to where you bought it and get a refund or a credit. Yes, EULAs are invariably presented on a "take it or leave it" basis but, nevertheless, those are two options and one of them is to leave it. You ain't gotta take it.

I cited Vernor because the original ruling said what I claimed it did, I was unaware that it was overturned on appeal two months ago. We'll see what happens on the next appeal, although the courts aren't exactly friendly to consumers these days.

The funny part is that you can't hardly find a much more consumer-friendly Circuit than the Ninth. California leads the nation in finding that EULAs are unconscionably and refusing to uphold them. If you're gonna have any success in getting outta the terms of a EULA, there's no better place to try doing so than in the Ninth Circuit.

But that the Big Three have EULAs that can withstand legal challenge shouldn't be all that surprising. You think Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft pay their hordes of attorneys all that money to come up with dumb shit that'll regularly get tossed outta court? I don't think so.

 

[JDKJ]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United States and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

Maybe, but try actually getting that person out of their country to serve their sentence. In a case like this, where it's not illegal in the country that it hypothetically occurred, and the closest equivalent crime is civil, not criminal, I doubt you're going to get that extradition without starting a war. Worst case scenario, the person who was tried in absentia can never set foot on American soil. Whoopee.

Edit: Especially when you consider that no American parties were injured here; Sony is a Japanese company, and the hypothetical "criminal" is Danish, and working under Danish law. How do the US courts have jurisdiction here, again?

 

[JDKJ]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

Maybe, but try actually getting that person out of their country to serve their sentence. In a case like this, where it's not illegal in the country that it hypothetically occurred, and the closest equivalent crime is civil, not criminal, I doubt you're going to get that extradition without starting a war. Worst case scenario, the person who was tried in absentia can never set foot on American soil. Whoopee.

Edit: Especially when you consider that no American parties were injured here; Sony is a Japanese company, and the hypothetical "criminal" is Danish, and working under Danish law. How do the US courts have jurisdiction here, again?

Are you asking me ridiculous questions just to amuse yourself?

Sony Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in Tokyo but it does business in the United States through a subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, based in New York City. As an American registered company doing business in the United States, Sony Corporation of America is subject to and can rely upon all the laws of the United States and any defendant which it can properly serve process upon is also subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. In this case, it isn't Sony Corporation (Japan) that's suing, it's Sony Corporation of America. That's the injured party that you're looking for and having difficulty finding. You just need to look a little harder.

 

[Athinira]

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

...which is still irrelevant if you can't have the judgement carried out. This is where you aren't following me. It doesn't matter if you serve me legal papers under US laws in Denmark, and i get a judgement if you can't apply it.

The Hague Service Convention is only intended to make sure that a defendant has a chance to respond to a complaint filed in a foreign country. It doesn't allow the eventual judgement to be carried out in that country.

Again, the worst thing that might happen is that i will have to avoid ever setting foot on American soil, something i have no intention of ever doing anyway. Even though Owyn didn't take into account that Sony have an American subsidiary, you forgot to adresse his REAL point: That the "hypothetical" criminal is Danish.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

Maybe, but try actually getting that person out of their country to serve their sentence. In a case like this, where it's not illegal in the country that it hypothetically occurred, and the closest equivalent crime is civil, not criminal, I doubt you're going to get that extradition without starting a war. Worst case scenario, the person who was tried in absentia can never set foot on American soil. Whoopee.

Edit: Especially when you consider that no American parties were injured here; Sony is a Japanese company, and the hypothetical "criminal" is Danish, and working under Danish law. How do the US courts have jurisdiction here, again?

Are you asking me ridiculous questions just to amuse yourself?

Sony Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in Tokyo but it does business in the United States through a subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, based in New York City. As an American registered company doing business in the United States, Sony Corporation of America is subject to and can rely upon all the laws of the United States and any defendant which it can properly serve process upon is also subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. In this case, it isn't Sony Corporation (Japan) that's suing, it's Sony Corporation of America. That's the injured party that you're looking for and having difficulty finding. You just need to look a little harder.

Way to ignore the main thrust of my argument, good job. Try doing that in court, lawyer boy, and you aren't going to win many cases. The fact still stands, in this pointless hypothetical, they can convict him in absentia all they want, but it's an empty gesture unless he's stupid enough to set foot on American soil.

 

[JDKJ]

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

...which is still irrelevant if you can't have the judgement carried out. This is where you aren't following me. It doesn't matter if you serve me legal papers under US laws in Denmark, and i get a judgement if you can't apply it.

The Hague Service Convention is only intended to make sure that a defendant has a chance to respond to a complaint filed in a foreign country. It doesn't allow the eventual judgement to be carried out in that country.

Now you've descended into the realm of legal mumbo-jumboisms. Technically, you can say the same thing about any U.S. defendant who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window out of which to throw that piss. Yeah, you can obtain judgment against them requiring them to pay you for your damages, but that judgment doesn't do you a whole lotta good if they've got no money. There is, on one hand, the law and, on the other, the practical reality. But you can't substitute the latter for the former and claim to still be making a legal argument. You aren't. You're only pointing to the practical realities. The two are not the same.

 

[JDKJ]

Look, I'm running out of patience and, frankly, didn't spend three years of my life in law school to end up being told a pile of legal bullshit that doesn't make any sense in English much less in law.

I'll admit you have me in the English/American law department, but my education also includes study of Danish copyright laws.

Lets just say that for the current case, I'm waiting for the final verdict (or the final verdict of a possible appeal). You see, given the recent jailbreak change to the DMCA, even if it states it only applies to phones, it's very possible that any judge will take that into account and set a precedent for consoles as well. Therefore it's impossible, for both me and you, to predict what any given judge or jury will decide, and then it's completely irrelevant if you've spent 20 years in law school.

First, you can't have a "breach" of anything unless you have a law that prohibits the breach. If that law is the law of the United Staes (i.e., the plaintiff bases their claim of a "breach" upon the law of the United States by, for example, claiming an infringement of their copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office), then the law of any other nation is wholly irrelevant. That's just basic Conflicts of Law 101.

That still doesn't change that as far as international Copyright law goes, you can't pursue legal claims in another country unless the country permits it, if the breach by legal terms isn't a breach in the country it was performed. Why do you think that The Pirate Bay managed to stay in Sweden for so long? It was only until Swedish copyright law was changed that they were forced to move.

If Geohot and all his assets were sitting in Denmark, he would be perfectly safe.

The thing that you seem to have trouble grasping is that your "Conflicts of Law 101" doesn't 101 everywhere in the world. I'm also sure that the United States could have tried Oussama bin Laden in absentia and have him condemned to execution (if they haven't already), but how much use is that again when they can't find the man? Point being that sometimes, the long arm of the law isn't always long enough.

But please, since you don't seem to think i know as much about law as i think i do: Educate me. Lets assume for a moment that it was me, not Geohot, who hacked the PS3. I'm sitting in Denmark. How would you, if you were a lawyer for Sony, pursue me for the Copyright breach and get me convicted and punished? I'm waiting.

Are you familiar with the Hague Convention? The Hague Convention provides for international service of process and makes it easy (for any attorney who knows how to serve process under and navigate the terms of the Hague Convention) to file a legal action in a U.S. court under U.S. law and then serve their complaint on a defendant in, to use your hypothetical, Denmark (the United Sates and Denmark both being signatories to the Hague Convention) and, once having served their complaint under Hague, that defendant is required to respond to the complaint or risk default judgment. It's that simple.

Maybe, but try actually getting that person out of their country to serve their sentence. In a case like this, where it's not illegal in the country that it hypothetically occurred, and the closest equivalent crime is civil, not criminal, I doubt you're going to get that extradition without starting a war. Worst case scenario, the person who was tried in absentia can never set foot on American soil. Whoopee.

Edit: Especially when you consider that no American parties were injured here; Sony is a Japanese company, and the hypothetical "criminal" is Danish, and working under Danish law. How do the US courts have jurisdiction here, again?

Are you asking me ridiculous questions just to amuse yourself?

Sony Corporation is a Japanese company headquartered in Tokyo but it does business in the United States through a subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, based in New York City. As an American registered company doing business in the United States, Sony Corporation of America is subject to and can rely upon all the laws of the United States and any defendant which it can properly serve process upon is also subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. In this case, it isn't Sony Corporation (Japan) that's suing, it's Sony Corporation of America. That's the injured party that you're looking for and having difficulty finding. You just need to look a little harder.

Way to ignore the main thrust of my argument, good job. Try doing that in court, lawyer boy, and you aren't going to win many cases. The fact still stands, in this pointless hypothetical, they can convict him in absentia all they want, but it's an empty gesture unless he's stupid enough to set foot on American soil.

Now you've descended into the realm of legal mumbo-jumboisms. Technically, you can say the same thing about any U.S. defendant who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window out of which to throw that piss. Yeah, you can obtain judgment against them requiring them to pay you for your damages, but that judgment doesn't do you a whole lotta good if they've got no money. There is, on one hand, the law and, on the other, the practical reality. But you can't substitute the latter for the former and claim to still be making a legal argument. You aren't. You're only pointing to the practical realities. The two are not the same.

And how am I ignoring the thrust of your argument? You asked how a U.S. court would be able to exercise jurisdiction under the facts of your hypothetical and I gave you the obvious answer. That's what you call ignoring the thrust of your argument?

And how about we resolve to mutually respect each other? I won't call you shit-for-brains if you can manage not to call me lawyer boy. Deal?

 

[Athinira]

Now you've descended into the realm of legal mumbo-jumboisms. Technically, you can say same the same thing about any U.S. defendant who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window out of which to throw that piss. Yeah, you can obtain judgment against them requiring them to pay you for your damages, but that judgment doesn't do you a whole lotta good if they've got no money. There is, on one hand, the law and, on the other, the practical reality. But you can't substitute the latter for the former and claim to still be making a legal argument. You aren't. You're only pointing to the practical realities. The two are not the same.

But given that it is the practical realities that actually matter, i think we can stop the discussion here

Bottom line is that, if they wanted, the hackers could either do their work from Denmark or publish their work through a danish middleman, and have no fear of being legally pursued, which is the entire point. One of the things Sony hopes to establish with this case is legal precedence to prevent further console hacking, which is where I'm pointing out that it's a simple matter of moving the operation (or the visible parts of the operation) to a different country. In other words, it's redundant.

 

[JDKJ]

Now you've descended into the realm of legal mumbo-jumboisms. Technically, you can say same the same thing about any U.S. defendant who doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window out of which to throw that piss. Yeah, you can obtain judgment against them requiring them to pay you for your damages, but that judgment doesn't do you a whole lotta good if they've got no money. There is, on one hand, the law and, on the other, the practical reality. But you can't substitute the latter for the former and claim to still be making a legal argument. You aren't. You're only pointing to the practical realities. The two are not the same.

But given that it is the practical realities that actually matter, i think we can stop the discussion here

Bottom line is that, if they wanted, the hackers could either do their work from Denmark or publish their work through a danish middleman, and have no fear of being legally pursued, which is the entire point. One of the things Sony hopes to establish with this case is legal precedence to prevent further console hacking, which is where I'm pointing out that it's a simple matter of moving the operation (or the visible parts of the operation) to a different country. In other words, it's redundant.

Actually, I think the fact that you don't know the difference between a precedence and a precedent is a much better indicator that I should bring my discussion with you of the law to a close.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Come on, guys; someone's gonna get in trouble if this keeps up.

 

[Athinira]

Actually, I think the fact that you don't know the difference between a precedence and a precedent is a much better indicator that I should bring my discussion with you of the law to a close.

The only thing that it's an indicator of is that English is a secondary language to me, and I'm not perfect at it.

Seems to me like you're only fishing for for things to flame me with at this point in an attempt to prove yourself superior, so i guess it's also time for me to stop before you turn this into a flamewar :-/

 

[Treblaine]

So Sony how has to win a lawsuit case IN NEW JERSEY!

I've never been to New Jersey but from what I have heard I wouldn't want to cause any trouble there, especially going after one of their people even if it is just a legal suit. Sony is going to get torn apart.

 

[JDKJ]

Actually, I think the fact that you don't know the difference between a precedence and a precedent is a much better indicator that I should bring my discussion with you of the law to a close.

The only thing that it's an indicator of is that English is a secondary language to me, and I'm not perfect at it.

Seems to me like you're only fishing for for things to flame me with at this point in an attempt to prove yourself superior, so i guess it's also time for me to stop before you turn this into a flamewar :-/

Unfortunately, law and the practice of law ain't much more than the artful use of language. If you are going to so boldly argue the law, then you really need to get your terms of art straight. For example and as trivial as it may seem to the layman, there is an entire world of difference between the phrases "you shall" and "you will" under the law. The former compels action, the latter has no compulsive force whatsoever. The Devil's in the details.

 

[Athinira]

Unfortunately, law and the practice of law ain't much more than the artful use of language. If you are going to so boldly argue the law, then you really need to get your terms of art straight. For example and as trivial as it may seem to the layman, there is an entire world of difference between the phrases "you shall" and "you will" under the law. The former compels action, the latter has no compulsive force whatsoever. The Devil's in the details.

That still isn't really an excuse for you to make assumptions about this basis alone. It's important to remember that typing errors occur far more often than reading errors. You knew perfectly well what i meant

Although i definitely agree with your last sentence. If i ever wanted to make a career as attorney in the US, i would have a looong way to go.

 

[JDKJ]

Unfortunately, law and the practice of law ain't much more than the artful use of language. If you are going to so boldly argue the law, then you really need to get your terms of art straight. For example and as trivial as it may seem to the layman, there is an entire world of difference between the phrases "you shall" and "you will" under the law. The former compels action, the latter has no compulsive force whatsoever. The Devil's in the details.

That still isn't really an excuse for you to make assumptions about this basis alone. It's important to remember that typing errors occur far more often than reading errors. You knew perfectly well what i meant

Although i definitely agree with your last sentence. If i ever wanted to make a career as attorney in the US, i would have a looong way to go.

Yes, I did know perfectly well what you meant. And, while I will admit to nit-picking you somewhat, I was also intent in impressing upon you the fact that you are discussing legal issues with someone whose knowledge of the law wasn't obtained from watching re-runs of "Law & Order" and "Matlock." If you're gonna come, you need to come correct. I ain't the one to fall for the ol' banana in the tailpipe trick.

 

[esin]

SomethingAmazing is in fact correct. When you purchase a game console, you haven't bought the software in the console. You've only licensed it from the manufacturer. And the terms of that license are usually found in the EULA with which you some how and in some way agreed and signed off on before you were able to actually use the console to play any media. And those terms usually state that the buyer can't fuck around and tinker with and re-write the software.

EULAs aren't the word of God. They've been repeatedly slapped down in court.

 

[JourneyMan88]

SONY's being fucking retarded. Instead of suing him, they should give him a medal, and offer him a job.