The official document basically states that he is not to attempt to gain "unauthorized access" to *any* Sony product - nor assist others in doing so.
So as long as he publishes anonymously, it's all good. =P
He has also updated his personal blog stating that he now is boycotting all Sony products
I stumbled across a well-reviewed product just today that I was thinking about buying, but then recoiled when I realized it was Sony-produced. No more for me. They're on my shit-list with Creative now.
* Does it only apply to his previously published work?
* Does it apply to PS3 modifications in general?
* Does it apply to modifying any Sony products in general?
Which are unknown, thus no one can prove that smoking causes lung cancer.
There are always some unknowns, which is why we have a margin of error, but for smoking it's quite easy to see, after accounting for a variety of other factors, that the link is extremely strong between smoking and various forms of cancer. Here, they haven't even attempted to account for anything. It's just one graph going down, and another graph going up. Do you honestly believe that to be any kind of standard of proof for anything? I hope not.
Show me a thorough study done on the relationship between porn and violence and it will be much more believable. (Not that such a study would change my mind either way. I happen to believe in free speech, even when its effects are unpleasant.)
Dead on, FB. All numbers are meaningless. Good call. "LOL"
To be fair, he has a point. If the numbers had been going up, we'd be the first ones here lambasting our idiot congressman with "correlation doesn't equal causation" posts.
The direction the numbers are traveling don't say anything about the effect porn has on those numbers; they merely mean that the moral panic proposed by our grandstanding congressman is disingenuous unless they change their argument to "These numbers would be free-falling faster if it weren't for porn!" I wouldn't bet on that line of honesty coming from them, however.
For all we know, those numbers would have declined more but for internet porn. Without causation, those numbers are meaningless, no?
A valid point that is often overlooked, so +1 for you.
However, the goons looking to start throwing people in jail for sending consenting adults pictures of other consenting adults are the one using scare tactics about how the prevalence of porn is making our society so much worse off in all these departments. If, in fact, we are getting better and not worse, what leg do they have to stand on?
With all due respect, unless you vote for one of the major parties (unless there is second and third choice in your country)? You are wasting your vote.
If you vote for anyone other than who you personally think is the best person for the job, you've wasted your vote, and that person is almost never from one of the major parties.
Are you saying you think it's ok to take something that is for sale without paying and without permission?
Absolutely not. If you offer an eBook on your website for sale and I hack into your server and copy it off, that would be morally wrong. Likewise, if I agreed to buy your eBook for a certain price, received the eBook, and then didn't pay you, that would morally wrong.
However, if someone else on the internet is willing to send that same eBook to me for free, and I accept, there is nothing morally wrong with that transaction. I didn't steal from you (the bandwidth in the first case), trespass on your property (your server, in the first case), nor violate a contractual agreement (the second case).
But don't think you're entitled to the benefits of having something that you didn't pay for.
That's a rather blanket statement that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
1. I find air a very beneficial resource, but I generally don't pay anyone for the privilege of breathing.
2. As the article points out, our current technological works are based on thousands of years of progress that you reap the benefit of, but that you don't pay for. On behalf of all the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of Zog the Caveman you don't pay royalties to, you're welcome.
3. I am not "entitled" to any work you create. That is, to say, I cannot force you to give me a copy of a particular work, if you were to choose to not release it (for example). Nor do I have a right to demand that any given person on the internet send me a copy of the work. However, if you (or someone on the internet) choose to give me a copy of that work, I will accept it graciously. That is not the same thing as feeling "entitled" to receive it.
they most certainly are aware that their site is used for infringement
And Google knows that YouTube in general is sometimes used for infringement, but that doesn't make them liable. General knowledge is not actual knowledge. When they get actual knowledge, they act on it.
So you'd rather have the rich people buy the kind of government they want instead of making it about who's the best person for the job and level the field?
My vote is not for sale. Is yours?
If not, how is their level of spending relevant to the votes they get? They can buy all the air time they want; at a fundamental level, I look at the candidates, their positions, and their past actions to decide who to vote for. I don't tally up the amount they spent on campaign buttons and go "Wellp, guess he should be the winner!"
But put a gun in my face and tell me that every idiot who comes forward deserves a portion of the money in my wallet merely so he "has a chance", and we have a problem. No thanks. Trying to support freedom by stealing is a self defeating proposition.
So when the KKK wants to put up their candidate, the government will gleefully point a gun at me and tell me to cough up the cash he needs to run for office.
On the post: Joe Biden: There's No Reason To Treat Intellectual Property Any Different Than Tangible Property
Re: Re: Re:
*notices exactly no statement that could be used to refute a single sentence written in the original post*
*hits 'Report' and moves on*
On the post: Perfect 10's Latest Bizarre Arguments Against Google Heard By Skeptical Appeals Court
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Redefines Detainment For Wikileaks Helper: You're Not Being Detained, You Just Can't Leave
Re: Police Officers Everywhere Rejoice
This it what my country has become. So very sad.
On the post: ICE Redefines Detainment For Wikileaks Helper: You're Not Being Detained, You Just Can't Leave
Police Officers Everywhere Rejoice
No need to get all dramatic about it.
On the post: Sony Settles PS3 Jailbreaking Lawsuit Against Geohot
Re: Re: Re:
So as long as he publishes anonymously, it's all good. =P
He has also updated his personal blog stating that he now is boycotting all Sony products
I stumbled across a well-reviewed product just today that I was thinking about buying, but then recoiled when I realized it was Sony-produced. No more for me. They're on my shit-list with Creative now.
On the post: Sony Settles PS3 Jailbreaking Lawsuit Against Geohot
Re:
* Does it only apply to his previously published work?
* Does it apply to PS3 modifications in general?
* Does it apply to modifying any Sony products in general?
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are always some unknowns, which is why we have a margin of error, but for smoking it's quite easy to see, after accounting for a variety of other factors, that the link is extremely strong between smoking and various forms of cancer. Here, they haven't even attempted to account for anything. It's just one graph going down, and another graph going up. Do you honestly believe that to be any kind of standard of proof for anything? I hope not.
Show me a thorough study done on the relationship between porn and violence and it will be much more believable. (Not that such a study would change my mind either way. I happen to believe in free speech, even when its effects are unpleasant.)
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re:
Actually, that's true in the absence of any statistical wrangling that accounts for all the other potential differences.
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re: Re:
To be fair, he has a point. If the numbers had been going up, we'd be the first ones here lambasting our idiot congressman with "correlation doesn't equal causation" posts.
The direction the numbers are traveling don't say anything about the effect porn has on those numbers; they merely mean that the moral panic proposed by our grandstanding congressman is disingenuous unless they change their argument to "These numbers would be free-falling faster if it weren't for porn!" I wouldn't bet on that line of honesty coming from them, however.
On the post: Senators And Reps Grandstand Against Online Pornography Which Is Destroying Our Social Fabric
Re:
A valid point that is often overlooked, so +1 for you.
However, the goons looking to start throwing people in jail for sending consenting adults pictures of other consenting adults are the one using scare tactics about how the prevalence of porn is making our society so much worse off in all these departments. If, in fact, we are getting better and not worse, what leg do they have to stand on?
On the post: 14,000 'Unsaved' Votes Suddenly 'Found' In Wisconsin?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forget secret votes
If you vote for anyone other than who you personally think is the best person for the job, you've wasted your vote, and that person is almost never from one of the major parties.
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
Absolutely not. If you offer an eBook on your website for sale and I hack into your server and copy it off, that would be morally wrong. Likewise, if I agreed to buy your eBook for a certain price, received the eBook, and then didn't pay you, that would morally wrong.
However, if someone else on the internet is willing to send that same eBook to me for free, and I accept, there is nothing morally wrong with that transaction. I didn't steal from you (the bandwidth in the first case), trespass on your property (your server, in the first case), nor violate a contractual agreement (the second case).
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re:
That's a rather blanket statement that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny.
1. I find air a very beneficial resource, but I generally don't pay anyone for the privilege of breathing.
2. As the article points out, our current technological works are based on thousands of years of progress that you reap the benefit of, but that you don't pay for. On behalf of all the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren of Zog the Caveman you don't pay royalties to, you're welcome.
3. I am not "entitled" to any work you create. That is, to say, I cannot force you to give me a copy of a particular work, if you were to choose to not release it (for example). Nor do I have a right to demand that any given person on the internet send me a copy of the work. However, if you (or someone on the internet) choose to give me a copy of that work, I will accept it graciously. That is not the same thing as feeling "entitled" to receive it.
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Google knows that YouTube in general is sometimes used for infringement, but that doesn't make them liable. General knowledge is not actual knowledge. When they get actual knowledge, they act on it.
Not sure where your confusion is coming from.
On the post: Cyberlocker Responds To MPAA Lawsuit Which Tries To Give Hollywood A Veto On Tech It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: SF Entertainment Commission Says Attending Any Gathering Of 100 Or More People Means You Lose All Privacy Rights
Re: Re: Re: But wait (Cake and eating again)
Refute the phrase "little mikee"? What?
i don't think your attempt to silence another commenter is going to go over well here.
Who's trying to silencing who? Did you respond to the wrong post?
AC: "Using that silly term cheapens your argument."
SQ: "OMG, STOP TRYIN' TO CENZ0R THE INTARWEBZ!"
On the post: Did ICE Pirate An Anti-Piracy Video From NYC?
Re:
Did they secure the rights to the video? Who knows! That's never stopped the *IAA in the past, though, so I say, send them a DMCA notice!
On the post: Which Would You Rather Have: 100,000 Unauthorized Downloads Of Your Music... Or None?
Re: Re: Yes.
You heard it here, folks. Stop raping the artists!
On the post: Economist Explains Why Paying Certain Bribes Should Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simplifiy it.
My vote is not for sale. Is yours?
If not, how is their level of spending relevant to the votes they get? They can buy all the air time they want; at a fundamental level, I look at the candidates, their positions, and their past actions to decide who to vote for. I don't tally up the amount they spent on campaign buttons and go "Wellp, guess he should be the winner!"
But put a gun in my face and tell me that every idiot who comes forward deserves a portion of the money in my wallet merely so he "has a chance", and we have a problem. No thanks. Trying to support freedom by stealing is a self defeating proposition.
On the post: Economist Explains Why Paying Certain Bribes Should Be Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Simplifiy it.
So when the KKK wants to put up their candidate, the government will gleefully point a gun at me and tell me to cough up the cash he needs to run for office.
Great.
Next >>