5 ms·

There's no point of dedicating resource on fighting freedom of speech. Sony just has to shift strategic position. I mean you don't see Microsoft and Apple whini

There's no point of dedicating resource on fighting freedom of speech. Sony just has to shift strategic position. I mean you don't see Microsoft and Apple whining about it. I know that Sony has dedicated A LOT of money on each individual PS3 console, but they knew this day would come. Instead of trying to sue and put restrictions on the first amendment, they should learn how to make money with a hacked system.

dangrossman 16y ago
What does this have to do with the first amendment? The first amendment prohibits the US government from making certain laws. "Freedom of speech" is freedom from government restrictions on speech, not from any actions of private businesses or individuals.
- erikpukinskis 16y ago
  As soon as Sony files a lawsuit they bring the government (and therefore the first amendment) into the picture.
  - dangrossman 16y ago
    One of the court's primary purposes is to uphold agreements where one party has contracted away their right to some speech (NDAs, terms of service agreements, exclusivity agreements, etc). The only time a court upholds the first amendment is when striking down a law made by congress, a state or a local government as unconstitutional. Read the bill of rights. They are limitations on the power of government.
  - tomrod 16y ago
    No. The government cannot make law restricting the freedom of speech. But legally signing away your freedom of speech is an enforceable contract. It has nothing to do with "bringing in the government, ERGO freedom of speech". That is not the way litigation works.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      I didn't sign shit when I bought my PS3. Sony isn't requesting that the US government enforce for them a contract that I signed fair and square, they're just using the court system as their own personal goon-squad.
      - regularfry 16y ago
        A contract doesn't have to be signed to be enforceable.
        kevinpet 16y ago
        Debatable. Well, technically correct of course, it doesn't have to be signed. But it's an open question where the lines are drawn with regard to agreeing to a contract you never read and understood.
        yardie 16y ago
        And not all contracts are enforcable. ATT got slapped pretty hard by saying you are unable to sue by agreeing to this contract. You give up some rights in a contract but certainly not all.
        chopsueyar 16y ago
        Especially all those "robo-signed" foreclosure documents. http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-womans-name-robo-signing-martha-kunkle-2010-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-womans-name-robo-signing...
    - wtallis 16y ago
      Signing away your freedoms in a contract is sometimes legal and enforceable. However, even if the language of the contract is clear, it can be invalidated for being unconscionable or for lack of consideration.
- jbri 16y ago
  Private individuals and businesses cannot do anything to prevent free speech. At best, they can petition the government to do so on their behalf. Hence the first amendment issue.
  - dangrossman 16y ago
    So you've never heard of an NDA? What about the TOS that prohibits you from writing hate speech on Facebook, or posting porn to YouTube? You can contract away your right to speech as easily as anything else. This has nothing to do with the first amendment.
    - jbri 16y ago
      What is a company going to do if you break an NDA? Call out a hit squad? Break your kneecaps? Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. With regards to your second issue, you're making the classic mistake of conflating a user's right to free speech with a provider's obligation to distribute that speech. Facebook has no obligation to distribute anything, and choosing not to distribute some things is not a limitation on free speech.
      - uxp 16y ago
        > Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. Only by suing you, civilly, in a civilian court of law. Unless the company is the United States Military, you can't really be thrown in jail for breaking the contract on its own. One would have to willfully spread the information learned while under the NDA, with the intent of that information causing damage, like a security hole in some bank's network a hired pen-tester finds that allows an attacker to illegally obtain money.
    - benreesman 16y ago
      an nda is a contract, it's breach makes only the privileged party liable, and even then only civilly. wrong wrong wrong wrong!
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- leoc 16y ago
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739943/Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739943/Complaint The law in this case is the DMCA (though it seems that Sony are also trying on accusations under computer-crime laws and bunch of other things). Only the fifth of Sony's eight claims for relief seems to be based on the PS3's user agreement, while it seems the motion for a temporary restraining order is entirely based on the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I am not a lawyer.
- imkevingao 16y ago
  okay let's link it bank. If you make a hack for PS3, fine. I doubt Sony would find out unless they have vans driving around the neighborhood like Google. But it's illegal if you start sharing it. Isn't this what Sony is trying to prevent? Having a free hacks released on the web, and therefore people can access it freely? I'm sure there are certain laws written within Congress, as many people below has stated that points specifically to sharing on the web. But in essence all of them were drafted and passed with the First amendment as the foundation
- mlinsey 16y ago
  I'm surprised you need this spelled out for you, but the professor is unaffiliated with and has no contractual relationship with Sony. Since he's just mirroring someone else's code, he probably hasn't even agreed to a TOS. Therefore any successful litigation against him would require reference to some law that makes it unlawful to disseminate the actual information. It's difficult to imagine how such a law would hold up to a rigorous first amendment challenge. Your other posts make it clear that you believe this guy has breached some private contractual obligation to Sony, and I'm curious to know where you're getting that idea.
  - DenisM 16y ago
    1. If someone breached an NDA and you helped/instigated them in doing so, you will be held jointly liable in civil damages. First amendment will not protect you against that, and there is ample case law in this area. Sony might lose the case, but not for the 1st amendment reasons. 2. Kindly avoid the condescending tone.
    - benreesman 16y ago
      incorrect.
      - DenisM 16y ago
        Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.
        benreesman 16y ago
        correct. it's because it's not true that I don't like it.
    - mlinsey 16y ago
      1. My understanding was the same as benreesman's: breach of an NDA only makes the person who agreed to it liable. IANAL but I did some searching around for the precedents you mentioned, and I found a few that back up what you say, but they all seem to set a fairly high bar for "helping/instigating" someone breach their NDA; for example knowing about the terms of the NDA. It seems unlikely the professor, who simply mirrored the code, would fall under those precedents. 2. Right on here, actually. Last night I was particularly annoyed at dangrossman's tone elsewhere (eg "So you've never heard of an NDA?") hence the snark in my original post, but after sleeping on it I'm sort of embarrassed it got to me that way.
zoul 16y ago
I would dare to say that more money probably went into this issue so far than Sony will ever lose because of the hack?

dangrossman 16y ago

What does this have to do with the first amendment? The first amendment prohibits the US government from making certain laws. "Freedom of speech" is freedom from government restrictions on speech, not from any actions of private businesses or individuals.

erikpukinskis 16y ago
As soon as Sony files a lawsuit they bring the government (and therefore the first amendment) into the picture.
- dangrossman 16y ago
  One of the court's primary purposes is to uphold agreements where one party has contracted away their right to some speech (NDAs, terms of service agreements, exclusivity agreements, etc). The only time a court upholds the first amendment is when striking down a law made by congress, a state or a local government as unconstitutional. Read the bill of rights. They are limitations on the power of government.
- tomrod 16y ago
  No. The government cannot make law restricting the freedom of speech. But legally signing away your freedom of speech is an enforceable contract. It has nothing to do with "bringing in the government, ERGO freedom of speech". That is not the way litigation works.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    I didn't sign shit when I bought my PS3. Sony isn't requesting that the US government enforce for them a contract that I signed fair and square, they're just using the court system as their own personal goon-squad.
    - regularfry 16y ago
      A contract doesn't have to be signed to be enforceable.
      - kevinpet 16y ago
        Debatable. Well, technically correct of course, it doesn't have to be signed. But it's an open question where the lines are drawn with regard to agreeing to a contract you never read and understood.
      - yardie 16y ago
        And not all contracts are enforcable. ATT got slapped pretty hard by saying you are unable to sue by agreeing to this contract. You give up some rights in a contract but certainly not all.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        Especially all those "robo-signed" foreclosure documents. http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-womans-name-robo-signing-martha-kunkle-2010-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/dead-womans-name-robo-signing...
  - wtallis 16y ago
    Signing away your freedoms in a contract is sometimes legal and enforceable. However, even if the language of the contract is clear, it can be invalidated for being unconscionable or for lack of consideration.
jbri 16y ago
Private individuals and businesses cannot do anything to prevent free speech. At best, they can petition the government to do so on their behalf. Hence the first amendment issue.
- dangrossman 16y ago
  So you've never heard of an NDA? What about the TOS that prohibits you from writing hate speech on Facebook, or posting porn to YouTube? You can contract away your right to speech as easily as anything else. This has nothing to do with the first amendment.
  - jbri 16y ago
    What is a company going to do if you break an NDA? Call out a hit squad? Break your kneecaps? Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. With regards to your second issue, you're making the classic mistake of conflating a user's right to free speech with a provider's obligation to distribute that speech. Facebook has no obligation to distribute anything, and choosing not to distribute some things is not a limitation on free speech.
    - uxp 16y ago
      > Oh, that's right, they'll get the government to step in. Only by suing you, civilly, in a civilian court of law. Unless the company is the United States Military, you can't really be thrown in jail for breaking the contract on its own. One would have to willfully spread the information learned while under the NDA, with the intent of that information causing damage, like a security hole in some bank's network a hired pen-tester finds that allows an attacker to illegally obtain money.
  - benreesman 16y ago
    an nda is a contract, it's breach makes only the privileged party liable, and even then only civilly. wrong wrong wrong wrong!
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
leoc 16y ago
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739943/Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/46739943/Complaint The law in this case is the DMCA (though it seems that Sony are also trying on accusations under computer-crime laws and bunch of other things). Only the fifth of Sony's eight claims for relief seems to be based on the PS3's user agreement, while it seems the motion for a temporary restraining order is entirely based on the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I am not a lawyer.
imkevingao 16y ago
okay let's link it bank. If you make a hack for PS3, fine. I doubt Sony would find out unless they have vans driving around the neighborhood like Google. But it's illegal if you start sharing it. Isn't this what Sony is trying to prevent? Having a free hacks released on the web, and therefore people can access it freely? I'm sure there are certain laws written within Congress, as many people below has stated that points specifically to sharing on the web. But in essence all of them were drafted and passed with the First amendment as the foundation
mlinsey 16y ago
I'm surprised you need this spelled out for you, but the professor is unaffiliated with and has no contractual relationship with Sony. Since he's just mirroring someone else's code, he probably hasn't even agreed to a TOS. Therefore any successful litigation against him would require reference to some law that makes it unlawful to disseminate the actual information. It's difficult to imagine how such a law would hold up to a rigorous first amendment challenge. Your other posts make it clear that you believe this guy has breached some private contractual obligation to Sony, and I'm curious to know where you're getting that idea.
- DenisM 16y ago
  1. If someone breached an NDA and you helped/instigated them in doing so, you will be held jointly liable in civil damages. First amendment will not protect you against that, and there is ample case law in this area. Sony might lose the case, but not for the 1st amendment reasons. 2. Kindly avoid the condescending tone.
  - benreesman 16y ago
    incorrect.
    - DenisM 16y ago
      Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.
      - benreesman 16y ago
        correct. it's because it's not true that I don't like it.
  - mlinsey 16y ago
    1. My understanding was the same as benreesman's: breach of an NDA only makes the person who agreed to it liable. IANAL but I did some searching around for the precedents you mentioned, and I found a few that back up what you say, but they all seem to set a fairly high bar for "helping/instigating" someone breach their NDA; for example knowing about the terms of the NDA. It seems unlikely the professor, who simply mirrored the code, would fall under those precedents. 2. Right on here, actually. Last night I was particularly annoyed at dangrossman's tone elsewhere (eg "So you've never heard of an NDA?") hence the snark in my original post, but after sleeping on it I'm sort of embarrassed it got to me that way.

zoul 16y ago

I would dare to say that more money probably went into this issue so far than Sony will ever lose because of the hack?