George Hotz: I Didn't Flee, I'm on Spring Break

[spockbr]

Sorry my poor English.

EULA and TOS are contracts between end users and SONY. Where do I sign up on PSN I have to accept the TOS. But my question is: What is life span of this contract? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?

SONY changed their TOS dozens of times. With each new TOS, SONY asks end users to accept the new conditions. If end users do not agree, the PSN service is unavaiable. This means, in my opinion, that the original TOS was terminated. The original TOS was terminated by Sony and the new TOS was not accepted by the end user.

At the end, no contract between two parties.

 

[army_ant7]

I remember that in most EULAs and TOSs, there's a condition that you have to accept the revision or new agreement when it comes out. That's why it tells you to regularly check the TOS or EULA (or maybe just when you want to do something not normally done).
The agreements also usually say that you are bound to them until you stop using the service or thing.

 

[acacetus]

Not to mention that EULAs are sketchy for even basic contract law anyway given that as a general rule contracts need to be signed with a third party witness to be binding.

 

[Guest]

And exactly why is it that only the company and not the consumer can modify the EULA? After all by selling me the product why do i not have the right to do what ever i want with is as long as it is not life threatening to another person? There has to be a point where I as the person paying for the service or product should be able to negotiate what i want in there as well.

 

[spockbr]

army_ant7 03/27/2011 8:09 AM

A Super Bonder Contract?

Eternal contract?

Is this legal?

I'm not stop using the service. I don't agree new TOS and SONY refuse to grant me a PSN service.

No contract between parties.

 

[army_ant7]

It says that if you don't agree with the agreement, then you shouldn't use the service... If you stop using the service, then you won't be under that agreement anymore. It's as simple as that.

 

[spockbr]

akbobby 03/27/2011 9:02 AM

Yes!

The company cannot modify EULA and TOS without user agreement.

If company propose modify and user doesn't agree, the contract was (will?) terminated.

 

[army_ant7]

You paid the amount for the service or item bound by the agreement. I think you can negotiate with the company to buy the service or item without an agreement for a much higher price.

But it really does say that you have to agree to future revisions so if you agree to that, then you agree to the future ones.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]Takuhi[/nom]@ Pesh. Contract is law....Once conditions are agreed upon by two parties, they are legally required to follow those conditions. In all cases, breaking any form of contract can be seen as a criminal offence unless the defending party can successfully annul the contract or argue that the breaking of the contract was lawful. Most contract breaches don't make it to civil courts, though.[/citation]
It really depends on the contract. A contract is only valid if that said contract doesn't go against the law. For example a phone manufacturer in the USA can put in the EULA that jail-breaking the phone is illegal, yet since it's legal to jailbreak it that term would be invalid.

 

[Guest]

i have a few bought games for windows using windows live (through steam and d2d) and they actually run poorer than the scene releases. you know why? because there's no DRM on SRs. there's no secureROM on SRs. there are elves running around MY computer wondering if i paid for the product. ironically, the ones who PIRATE it don't HAVE TO ENDURE THE SAME ANAL PROBING THE REAL SUPPORTERS OF THE GAME. THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE PRODUCT ARE GETTING PUNISHED FOR IT?!?

and then they wonder why software piracy is soooo popular.

oh and don't get me started with windows live. you have to pay 10 bucks to switch your profile name. *ok symbol* great job, microsoft. you guys have common sense written all over your face. i love your products. keep giving me a reason to not use money for them...

THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH PIRATED COPIES OF WINDOWS 7 ULTIMATE AND I'M STUCK WITH HOME BASIC BECAUSE I WANT TO BE MORALLY CORRECT. DO THEY EVER GET CHECKED FOR VALIDITY? NOOOO. DO I? HOW BOUT EVERY TIME I USE A 3RD PARTY DRIVER!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

;DAFES OAJRUGHO; JI AP48U98P U3549UR9GFDVJPOIJSIJIPIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

 

[anavocado]

I know there isnt an EULA for the ps3 hardware (as it's hardware and there aren't liscense agreements for hardware yet), and while there may be one for the OS, I've never seen it.

Historically, the basis of an EULA is that if you don't follow it, you can't use the software. But it ends there. You don't see companies going after cheaters by having them arrested, they just ban them instead. (Cheaters who don't make money from cheating anyway, if they profit from it its a different case)

It depends if A: did he re-distribute any of sony's OS code? (I don't think we know this) If he did, thats punishable as copyright infringment or something similar.

B: If there is an EULA for the ps3 OS, then did he directly violate a part of it that can legally stand up? This one's a lot less clear. I don't know that an EULA has ever been used in court successfully, as it really isn't law and as such is only enforceable by (legally acceptable) actions taken by the parties who wrote it (such as banning someone from PSN or Xbox live, or simply not letting a program run if you don't have a cd key, this does not apply to directly damaging hardware someone purchased, however, as no matter who sells it that does not give them the right to steal/damage the consumers property) On top of this, we don't even know if the ps3's OS was required to make a jailbreak. If the systems security is internal to the hardware alone, then its possible that he didn't need to even use the ps3's OS to create it, and thus is not bound by an EULA at all. It's important to note the difference between what he does with his own hardware (the ps3) and with the liscenced software (the ps3's operating system). There's more or less nothing anyone can do with hardware that's even remotely illegal (minus bludgeoning someone with it of course or otherwise directly harming others), but what they do with the software is the grey area Sony is getting at here.

 

[HappyBB]

May Hotz's work live long and be carried on to future iteration of PSes!

 

[back_by_demand]

Argue as much as you want, he won't be ruled as guilty.

As far as i'm concerned it's no different than dismantling a car engine to find out why it does 20mpg more than the next car.

 

[Parrdacc]

So let's see, as far as I know, Hotz is just facing a lawsuit, has not been arrested or at least not under any sort of court order not to leave the country and Sony automatically assumes he is fleeing the country? Okay, Sony, time for a lesson here. So long as Hotz is not under any kind of legal order or whatnot saying he cannot leave the country he has every right to come and go as he pleases. What? You thought just cause your big bad Sony and launched a lawsuit against him he is just supposed to sit at home, and do what, cower? Wow you guys at Sony seem to have a over inflated sense of yourselves.

 

[back_by_demand]

Sony should drop the lawsuit and offer this guy a job

 

[eddieroolz]

I agree with those that say a contract is indeed legally binding. This means that Geohot must have known well that this was illegal and that Sony is correct in pursuing him in court, since that's the right they reserved.

However, I do think that Sony's being a bit over-the-top with this one. Pursuing a hacker, no matter how detrimental to the product, just ends up angering the community at large.