"Look at the USPS. Is the Government running that service efficiently?"
.
Uh, the USPS has a whole world of responsibilities that private companies do not. Coupled with the fact that their prime service (mail delivery) is being usurped by another entity (the internet), it's quite hard to run a service with a mandated price structure.
.
If the USPS were run like a business, it would charge you based on where you are sending something, AND it wouldn't send things to quite a few places at all simply because it wasn't economical.
.
Either you have universal service or you don't. The private sector does not provide universal service unless forced; i.e. cable franchises.
"The Support Network repeatedly requested and was refused formal documentation from PayPal describing their policies in this matter. "
.
Sounds pretty much like PayPal told them to just go away, without documenting *why*.
.
"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization’s checking account by default."
.
Seriously? We won't do business with you unless you let us arbitrarily access your bank account. Sounds vaguely close to extortion to me.
"I'm sure Vicks would love to be able to prevent this on the grounds of trademark infringement, but they obviously can't."
with the obvious caveat that the company making the generics has actual money and lawyers with which to defend itself. Your average game tinkerer does not have that luxury.
You could make a (quite weak IMO) argument that if you want to apply for a job you maybe should have to 'friend' the company so that they can view your private friend only feed.
There is no justification for given them your passwords.
If you were required to drive for a job, would you feel ok giving the company a copy of your car keys? They can just drop by and take your care whenever they might need to check out that it wasn't illegally modified?
"My passwords? sure, just as soon as I have your car keys"
It does sort of create a plausible deniability(sp?). "Nope, wasn't me, must have been someone from XYZ agency as they took my passwords and forbid me to change it."
According to another poster here, a choice was made. PS3 users could keep the OS option you mention *or* keep using the device on the PS3 network since it now required a firmware upgrade.
If that is true, I rest my case. People were still fully able to do what they wanted, but not that AND use Sony's network.
The sale is separate. The agreement is not about the machine it is about using Sony's network. You're saying Sony can't dictate how people use *its* network?
You're saying that anyone should be able to do anything when using someone *else's* network? So after you invite me to your place of work I can come to your office and not abide by your rules? And you shouldn't be able to kick me out because of that?
You're saying that even though I bought a cell phone, I shouldn't have to abide by the carriers rules about that phone when I use their network?
Apple/AT&T are being intelligent by not prohibiting jail broken phones, but that doesn't mean they aren't within their rights to stop modified devices from using their network.
Jail breaking your PS3 is perfectly legal. Sony is trying to claim its not but that will settle out eventually. Apple said the same things about their devices being jail broken immediately.
The issue here is whether or not the provider of a network is legally entitled to block devices from their network that have been tampered with. Apple is being smarter and tolerating it because more people will use their network than if they crack down. They have not been so nice about iTunes hacks.
Tivo does the same thing...to a point. They fully accept all the modifications people make except hacking into the guide data. That they hit and hit hard on because its part of the revenue stream.
What if these jail broken PS3's provided an ability to cheat at the online experience. Most comments here suggest it is possible though rare (I honestly don't know). Now imagine it gets out that people can and are cheating on the PS3 network. Wouldn't that cause some rule following people to choose another network? I know I don't want to play with cheaters, do you?
So the integrity of the online experience is important because its about the reputation people expect. This is quite different than the reputation of the company providing the network.
Sony sucks, I don't buy their stuff if I can help it. But complaining because Sony is protecting their assets at your expense when you modified your device is pretty weak.
not quite. You bought the Ferrari under the agreement that you could only drive on 'Sony' roads if you didn't tamper with it.
Then after tampering with it, they banned you from driving on 'Sony' roads. You broke your agreement, they rescinded theirs. Nothing to see here, move on.
Integrity of Sony is different from the integrity of the online experience. If it's jailbroken, is it really hard to imagine that they can modify the game code to have advantages over others on the network?
Sony is perfectly within their rights to do this, baring the legalese of the TOU but that rarely 'grants' you rights.
It's dumb, stupid and all kinds of boneheaded, but this is what you get when you buy into a closed system. They make the rules and you can abide by them or be shut out.
On the post: Shocker: More Than Half The Money Paid Into High Cost Universal Service Fund Not Going To Provide Universal Service
Re: Gov't Control?
.
Uh, the USPS has a whole world of responsibilities that private companies do not. Coupled with the fact that their prime service (mail delivery) is being usurped by another entity (the internet), it's quite hard to run a service with a mandated price structure.
.
If the USPS were run like a business, it would charge you based on where you are sending something, AND it wouldn't send things to quite a few places at all simply because it wasn't economical.
.
Either you have universal service or you don't. The private sector does not provide universal service unless forced; i.e. cable franchises.
On the post: PayPal Cuts Off Account For Bradley Manning Support
Re: Re: Re: Anybody ask Paypal about this?
.
Sounds pretty much like PayPal told them to just go away, without documenting *why*.
.
"They said they would not unrestrict our account unless we authorized PayPal to withdraw funds from our organization’s checking account by default."
.
Seriously? We won't do business with you unless you let us arbitrarily access your bank account. Sounds vaguely close to extortion to me.
On the post: Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?
Re: Yup
So 'Ron', if that's your real name, just what did you give to Mr. Assange? hmm? vee haf vays ov making vou talk!!!
On the post: How Lawyers For Settlers Of Catan Abuse IP Law To Take Down Perfectly Legal Competitors
Re:
with the obvious caveat that the company making the generics has actual money and lawyers with which to defend itself. Your average game tinkerer does not have that luxury.
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
Re: Re: Another frightening prospect...
When security is a priority for FB I *might* consider it.
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
Re: Re: Re: Drug Test?
There is no justification for given them your passwords.
If you were required to drive for a job, would you feel ok giving the company a copy of your car keys? They can just drop by and take your care whenever they might need to check out that it wasn't illegally modified?
On the post: Maryland Corrections Agency Demanding All Social Media Passwords Of Potential Hires
Re: Setup fake/dummy account?
It does sort of create a plausible deniability(sp?). "Nope, wasn't me, must have been someone from XYZ agency as they took my passwords and forbid me to change it."
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that is true, I rest my case. People were still fully able to do what they wanted, but not that AND use Sony's network.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're saying that even though I bought a cell phone, I shouldn't have to abide by the carriers rules about that phone when I use their network?
Apple/AT&T are being intelligent by not prohibiting jail broken phones, but that doesn't mean they aren't within their rights to stop modified devices from using their network.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can it work without that network?
Can I go into the boot startup like a regular computer?
Can I modify the startup sequence of apps?
Can I change priority of processes via task manager?
if not, then it wasn't able 'drive' on 'all' roads
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You didn't know this about Sony previously?
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're claiming there is *no* license agreement screen? I find that extremely hard to believe...
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The issue here is whether or not the provider of a network is legally entitled to block devices from their network that have been tampered with. Apple is being smarter and tolerating it because more people will use their network than if they crack down. They have not been so nice about iTunes hacks.
Tivo does the same thing...to a point. They fully accept all the modifications people make except hacking into the guide data. That they hit and hit hard on because its part of the revenue stream.
What if these jail broken PS3's provided an ability to cheat at the online experience. Most comments here suggest it is possible though rare (I honestly don't know). Now imagine it gets out that people can and are cheating on the PS3 network. Wouldn't that cause some rule following people to choose another network? I know I don't want to play with cheaters, do you?
So the integrity of the online experience is important because its about the reputation people expect. This is quite different than the reputation of the company providing the network.
Sony sucks, I don't buy their stuff if I can help it. But complaining because Sony is protecting their assets at your expense when you modified your device is pretty weak.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re:
Then after tampering with it, they banned you from driving on 'Sony' roads. You broke your agreement, they rescinded theirs. Nothing to see here, move on.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re:
The moral of the story is don't by closed systems from companies with very poor record of respecting their customers.
On the post: Sony Continues To Attack PS3 Jailbreakers: Threatens To Cut Them Off From PlayStation Network
Re: Re: Re:
Sony is perfectly within their rights to do this, baring the legalese of the TOU but that rarely 'grants' you rights.
It's dumb, stupid and all kinds of boneheaded, but this is what you get when you buy into a closed system. They make the rules and you can abide by them or be shut out.
Next >>