# Graf_Chokolo Needs Support or He's Going to Jail



## Terminator02 (Jun 18, 2011)

For what many of us have started to take for granted has been a bit of a journey for one person. Graf the guy behind much of the progress of the Linux scene for the PS3 has been fighting off Sony while the rest of us have been bitching over who should release the keys next. This guys, is essentially the hero for this scene but unfortunately his legal fund is drying up, yesterday on his blog he left a few words on how things are for him at this time.

From Graf's Blog:

"Hi guys, no money left anymore. Going to jail soon probably because i cannot pay court costs.
But i’m ready to stand up for everything i said and go to jail for that too. It’s not important to win, more important is to show them that we are ready to fight, that they cannot scare me off easily. Yeah, i’m ready to go to jail for my believes and my principles.
Most of people probably think that all computer and kernel hackers are weak kids, hiding in a cellar, eating pizza whole day, writing software and looking for attention Maybe, but that’s NOT me. And i will get out eventually and continue my work. My work means very much to me."

Also, gitbrew tweets:
"Gitbrew hereby dedicates the OpenCL installer toolkit to graf_chokolo. SUPPORT your Devs, RT! - bit.ly/kUCmsI gitbrew.org/support"

It's sad to think that someone with such great talent might be going to jail for not being able to afford the ever growing legal fees. Especially when all he is doing is restoring a function on the PS3 that an update removed. 

Donate to his legal fund if you can, he has shown he wont bow down to the Giant Crab.[/p]



Source (PSX-Scene)



Donate


----------



## m3rox (Jun 18, 2011)

Dude's not getting a dime from me.


----------



## Sterling (Jun 18, 2011)

m3rox said:
			
		

> Dude's not getting a dime from me.


Good for you. Mean while, I'll be donating some money when I get paid. It's the least I could do for one so bright. I'd rather him not go to jail for this shit.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 18, 2011)

people are going to be reluctant to donate because of what geohot did


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jun 18, 2011)

Joe88 said:
			
		

> people are going to be reluctant to donate because of what geohot did


What did he do?


----------



## chartube12 (Jun 18, 2011)

Geohot took a vacation with the money. No joke.


----------



## Lube_Skyballer (Jun 18, 2011)

WiiBricker said:
			
		

> Joe88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He used all the donated money to go on a vacation or something like that.

EDIT: a tad too late


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 18, 2011)

All it really takes is admitting that "I did something naughty with my console because I CAN, however I probably shouldn't have posted the hacked code on my site because it's generally conscidered illegal to put partially-modified code that was written by somebody else and is currently in product circulation" and he'll get off the hook with a fine. A big one, but not as big as Bubba's Love Tools.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 18, 2011)

chartube12 said:
			
		

> Geohot took a vacation with the money. No joke.


Everything you hear on the internet is true. Who needs evidence when you have unsubstantiated rumors?


----------



## Snailface (Jun 18, 2011)

chartube12 said:
			
		

> Geohot took a vacation with the money. No joke.


You need to read this. 
http://www.osnews.com/story/24647/GeoHot_D...er_10000_to_EFF
He didn't spend the money.


----------



## nl255 (Jun 18, 2011)

Snailface said:
			
		

> chartube12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Has the EFF confirmed that they got the money?


----------



## Schlupi (Jun 18, 2011)

nl255 said:
			
		

> Snailface said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe they confirmed it, yeah.

Anyways, this is bullshit. I can't believe THAT is what is gonna do him in... I would donate if I could but I can't, so... damn. Maybe if I get money soon I will chip in a little something.


----------



## Annieone23 (Jun 18, 2011)

EFF confirmed they got the money, and he did not spend it to go on vacation. He was already over there for quite a while, and if anything I think it was in case his case went sour if you know what I mean.

*GEOHOT DID NOT SPEND THE MONEY, THERE IS PROOF HE DONATED IT*
Please dont spread baseless rumors. Graf really needs the money, any bit he can get, and defacing his name like that will only help send an innocent man to jail. Dont be so heartless.


----------



## Slyakin (Jun 18, 2011)

Dammit, I don't have anymore money to spare right now...

I... Ugh, now I feel conflicted.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 18, 2011)

so i guess sony is still at it well not my problem  abandoned the ps3 scene a while ago and for those who say im heartless your DAMN right


----------



## VashTS (Jun 18, 2011)

i cannot donate, have a child on the way, but i feel for graf. he is a smart dude, but should have learned to keep quiet about this stuff. i would not go to jail for my beliefs, beliefs do not mean more to me than freedom.

i will however not buy sony products directly any more.  i am buying a new dvd burner, i check newegg and they had 2 sonys as the cheapest, i waited until a different brand dropped to a lower price. currently buying an lg, probably placing an order today. i will buy a second hand sony product, but i will not give any money to sony any longer.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 18, 2011)

Give him money! Also, get LulzSec to meddle with the court records


----------



## pistone (Jun 18, 2011)

if someone on the ps3 scene deserves the many that man is graf and ill be happy to donate some $ but i dont have a credit card T-T


----------



## MaxNuker (Jun 18, 2011)

*Get him Phoenix Wright*

oh wait, sony thread sorry xD

JUST KIDDING DON'T FLAME ME!!

if i could i'd donate him some money... i guess sony these days are Sueing Maniacs... or something like that xD

anyways... i think its kinda stupid for sony to do that... this just get them more costumers... atleast i think...


----------



## Midna (Jun 18, 2011)

I'm sure Phoenix would defend someone who helped hack a Sony console.


----------



## MaxNuker (Jun 18, 2011)

And Phoenix Wright would win as always... and get Jack Tretton the Guilty Veredict?(jack is always trolling nintendo) xD


----------



## titen96 (Jun 18, 2011)

If only i had a job, well i wish him luck


----------



## MaxNuker (Jun 18, 2011)

titen!!! you are just what graf needs (your avatar is phoenix wright afterall xD) [again, no flame intended, "just for the lulz"]

anyways.. if i had a job... i would help him too (im just 14...)


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 18, 2011)

Something interesting about Graf, is that he hasn't been really public about the legal issues he's been having. I mean, when geohotz case was happening, practically every step and every court record that could be made public, was in some post on this site. With Graf though, he's just kind of known as that guy who has worked on PS3 hacking for awhile, from Other OS, forward.

Now, I could be wrong, but at the very least, not many here are incredibly aware of his situation.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 19, 2011)

maybe he should ask his buddies lulzsec to hack into a bank and get him the $


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Well, he did something illegal, I guess he should pay for it. I wouldn't donate, but someone else will.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

I wish I could help him. But I barely have any money to my name. Sony's conduct towards him has been despicable.


----------



## Minox (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Well, he did something illegal, I guess he should pay for it. I wouldn't donate, but someone else will.


And what is this illegal thing you speak of? Bringing linux back to PS3? Reverse-engineering?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Minox_IX said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, sure. I don't see what you're getting at, they would not fine someone for not breaking the law.


----------



## chartube12 (Jun 19, 2011)

If Graf (or really anyone) helped me find a job, I'd gladly donate some cash to help with his legal fees. But right now I'm broke and jobless.


----------



## Minox (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Minox_IX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you have complete trust in the legal system? Do not question anything they do? Just because someone is taken to court they're automatically in the wrong?


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Yeah, sure. I don't see what you're getting at, they would not fine someone for not breaking the law.



There hasn't being a trial, he might be going down not for being found guilty of anything, but for not being able to afford the fees. Well that's what the OP sounds like.


----------



## tbgtbg (Jun 19, 2011)

This is why they should do the stuff they do more anonymously. Not saying they have to not have a name attached to what they do, but sheesh, at least do it in a way that there's no path leading back to your meatspace identity for Sony (or whoever) to sue the pants off you with.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Minox_IX said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe in the legal system, and also... He did do something wrong, he knows it, Sony knows it, and we do. It's not a secret that he did something illegal. I don't even think he denies bringing Linux to PS3.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 19, 2011)

maybe lulzsec can hack into the court and get the case removed


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Minox_IX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/...umer_board_says_


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

This world would suck if they could bend laws to others liking. Could you imagine a world where everything you do is okay? He broke a real law that should not be changed because it's Sony's system, it's their rules. They said not to do something, don't do it, as simple as that. I break laws, and if I get caught I have to pay for the consequences.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Minox_IX said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, right, I'm sorry, we only pay the money for the license to own the sys...tem...wait...it says nothing about that in the ToS...or on the box...or when I was sold the PS3...

Don't get what "buying" means?  Means "transfer of ownership in exchange for other goods or money."  Once you buy it, Sony stops owning that system.  Actually, the *Store* stops owning that system.  Sony loses ownership the moment the stores buy the stock from them.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> This world would suck if they could bend laws to others liking. Could you imagine a world where everything you do is okay? He broke a real law that should not be changed because it's Sony's system, it's their rules. They said not to do something, don't do it, as simple as that. I break laws, and if I get caught I have to pay for the consequences.



I'm not talking about changing it because of one man's will.
While Graf is only one case it still applies to similar cases.
As often "quoted" back when Geohot was still relevant in the ps3 scene:
"Why should jailbreaking the Iphone be legal but not jailbreaking the ps3?"

Back in the days there was a debate over laws whether it should be legal to jailbreak your phone and laws were changed in this matter.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

shinkukage09 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not true, if it was Sony could not sue anyone.


----------



## redact (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> He did do something wrong, he knows it, Sony knows it, and we do. It's not a secret that he did something illegal. I don't even think he denies bringing Linux to PS3.


you're trolling me, right?
since when the fuck is using an open source SDK (psl1ght) to port an open source Operating System (Linux) to your own paid-for hardware considered a crime?
if you want your rights quashed then good for you but i don't want sony to rule my life or graf's life :/


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> shinkukage09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Judging by that answer, I truly think you're trolling everyone.  If not, you're blind.

8/10 Trolling.  Good, but too easy to spot.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> This world would suck if they could bend laws to others liking. Could you imagine a world where everything you do is okay? He broke a real law that should not be changed because it's Sony's system, it's their rules. They said not to do something, don't do it, as simple as that. I break laws, and if I get caught I have to pay for the consequences.



The whole point of the case is to see if what he did is illegal. The EUCD does allow for reversing for interoperability, which *could* (I personally believe should) include running Linux. The case needs to be heard to set precedent and decide how the directive should be enforced and how much scope it has. For someone so on the side of the law you don't seem to understand much about it.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Yeah, yeah. I look down on you for not believing in the legal system. I see lots of things where guilty people are guilty, and innocent people are innocent. And am I supposed to think, "He is guilty, that must mean he is innocent" and vice versa? And if an official company says not to mess with something, don't do it.



That's not even the point, opinions will always be different, it's just that only because laws say so one does not have to blindly agree with them.
Use your reason in order to think about whether something is really that bad that it should be illegal.
If you still think what graf has done is really enough to jail him and sue him for millions, okay then.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> ...it's Sony's system, it's their rules...


Because rules which were set down by a corporate entity with a history of end-user abuse should be uncritically swallowed? Please.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

What can I say, you're all hackers and law breakers, of course you would not agree with me. I'm on the laws side, which I guess makes me a troll. My logic is using the law, yours is "Why can't I do this? Because they say not to?"... That would never stand in court.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> What can I say, you're all hackers and law breakers, of course you would not agree with me. I'm on the laws side, which I guess makes me a troll. My logic is using the law, yours is "Why can't I do this? Because they say not to?"... That would never stand in court.



Actually, no.  Your logic is broken.  "Why can't I do this?  No law says I can't." is more what it is.  The law is corrupt, and if you fail to realize that, then...well...you're just blind.

For the record, I'm no hacker.  Nor even a pirate, in most cases.  Your logic is just blind optimism that the law isn't controlled by whoever has the most money at the time.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Not true, if it was Sony could not sue anyone.



You do know suing someone is civil and not criminal law yes?

Actually anyone with enough money can sue anyone for anything. Then these things are meant to be decided in court. The defendant could be found in breach and punished, the plaintiffs could also be given a load of shit and a fine for wasting the courts time.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

This reminds me so much of this youtube troll video I saw which posed the question:
"If god does not exist, then who wrote the bible?"

No offense to religious people though!


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

shinkukage09 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Laws are made for reasons. People where actually not updating because they want to keep Linux, that could cause some security risks or any other problems the patch could've been meant to fix. They don't make laws to say lol they can't do this now, they do it because it has a reason. Don't break laws and everything should work fine. If I break my 3DS using my Acekard it's my fault.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> shinkukage09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know that, at least in Europe, that bricking the Nintendo 3DS because a consumer has used flashcards (which are perfectly legal btw) is illegal for Nintendo?
Again, laws were made by people, people have flaws, laws have flaws.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> shinkukage09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is my last reply to you, as it's going nowhere.  Them not updating?  Guess what.  *Their property.  Their choice.  The updates are not mandatory.  The ONLY reason they are on the discs is because each firmware is made to fix, add, or remove something.  Something the game may not be able to handle.*  There is NO law stating you can't do what you want with your property.  Why do you think Apple lost the lawsuit over jailbreaking?


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> What can I say, you're all hackers and law breakers, of course you would not agree with me. I'm on the laws side, which I guess makes me a troll. My logic is using the law, yours is "Why can't I do this? Because they say not to?"... That would never stand in court.


Your "logic", if one could call it that, involves taking the side of a company that does not really deserve to be defended when their complete history with their customers is taken into account. In this case, you're a bourgeois apologist whose practice of "using the law" does not go beyond the will of Howard Stringer and his big shareholder cronies. Shamefully, even Lulzsec appears more favorable than you right now.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was not too smart to say. That's your opinion that a company does not need to be listened to because they did a "bad" job. I assume you meant bad since you're talking about Sony, the people who got hacked.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jun 19, 2011)

corrupt and fascist legal system


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True, it is, but that has nothing to do with the legal side of things at all.
Nobody can sue you for using homebrew things, you cannot sue anyone as you were aware it might brick your system due to faulty code.
I don't get the connection with our case to be honest.


----------



## m3rox (Jun 19, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol, someone has a 'word-of-the-day' calendar


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> Actually their released doc for the 1000st tweet makes Lulzsec sound pretty serious and reasonable.
> Yeah they are kinda dumb, at least when it comes to overthinking the outcome of their actions for themselves but they state some pretty good points.


Honestly, I don't know what to think of Lulzsec yet. In the meantime, I think a complete defense of their actions is impossible, mature or not.

@m3rox: I promise that there's no calendar. Just doctrinaire literature professors.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



@Assax: (reply to the post ahead of my own) Agreed.
@stanleyopar2000: While we should probably discuss this in another thread, I think your assessment is premature. It cannot be said that the US state has embraced fascism yet.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, complete defense makes no sense as releasing user passwords and names etc is really against any reason.
However it's good that they kinda point out how full of flaws the internet is just as they say.

But let's not discuss this here, it will derail the whole thread.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because Nintendo says not to use flashcarts, even if they're legal, and I used it and my DS breaks, it's my fault. Same reason this guy is at fault, he broke a law.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Because Nintendo says not to use flashcarts, even if they're legal, and I used it and my DS breaks, it's my fault. Same reason this guy is at fault, he broke a law.



No he hasn't, not until a court decides he has. What aren't you getting about the idea that this case would have set precedent?


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You broke the device, thats all, Nintendo basically just says they don't take responsibility, nothing more than a broken 3DS is going to happen to you, that is in no relation to Graf's case.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What law did he break?


----------



## firetempest (Jun 19, 2011)

I'd really love to ask these hackers that have been caught why they didn't take simple steps so they wouldn't get caught. Why  they didn't mask their ip address, and release under an alias. It doesn't take a smart guy to figure out that Sony is going to come down on you like a ton of bricks with a fleet of lawyers. It just seems to me that these brilliant hackers have very little in the way of common sense.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I will assume you're kidding.

And here is the bottom line, I believe in the law, you guys don't. Now lets stop making a stupid war over differing opinions. You guys looked into your opinions, and so did I. We all know debating with each other is not gonna change any opinions. We're all probably closed minded, judging by all the comments I've read.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When did Nintendo start making laws?  When did breaking something equal a law broken?  Even better: When did Nintendo make laws stating that if it's ONLY breaking a law if the device breaks?

EDIT: Yeah, you're either a really...bad troll...or a little kid who's REALLY blind to how the world runs.  Can't even back up your statements with proof when cornered.  I feel bad for anyone who gets put on trial with you on the jury.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I will assume you're kidding.
> 
> And here is the bottom line, I believe in the law, you guys don't. Now lets stop making a stupid war over differing opinions. You guys looked into your opinions, and so did I. We all know debating with each other is not gonna change any opinions. We're all probably closed minded, judging by all the comments I've read.


No, I'm not kidding. Can you actually demonstrate that he broke a law?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

shinkukage09 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems you're talking about yourself... It's easy for me to have proof of everything I say, the law backs up what I'm saying. You're just against it. You can choose not to like a law, you can't change it. Now stop being immature.


----------



## redact (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


he's not. state exactly which law was broken and go into detail about it, please


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> It's easy for me to have proof of everything I say, the law backs up what I'm saying.



You made me laugh before going to bed, thanks


----------



## GreatZimkogway (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> shinkukage09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will accept that, and apologize personally, as soon as you prove which law he broke.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Seems you're talking about yourself... It's easy for me to have proof of everything I say, the law backs up what I'm saying. You're just against it. You can choose not to like a law, you can't change it. Now stop being immature.


If everyone had that mentality we would never have abolished slavery. Slavery was perfectly legal. Why should the people have questioned a law?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now this is what I like to read, very good point. Even though at the time it was legal to have a slave, so anyone with a slave does not deserve to get in trouble through the laws eyes. And why is everyone asking me what law he broke? I could have sworn they said it in the source. He reverse engineered right? I'm guessing that's what it's called, not exactly sure. And Assax, glad I could make you laugh, if you want to laugh more you should Google laws. lol


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Now this is what I like to read, very good point. Even though at the time it was legal to have a slave, so anyone with a slave does not deserve to get in trouble through the laws eyes. And why is everyone asking me what law he broke? I could have sworn they said it in the source. He reverse engineered right? I'm guessing that's what it's called, not exactly sure. And Assax, glad I could make you laugh, if you want to laugh more you should Google laws. lol
> 
> Everyone is asking about the law he broke because you are always saying that you can backup your position with law while you have not provided any reference to any law that applies here.
> 
> ...



So, all he made himself guilty of was releasing his bible AFTER his first raid, until his first raid he did not release any "public information obtained through reverse engineering" as far as I remember.
Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> So, all he made himself guilty of was releasing his bible AFTER his first raid, until his first raid he did not release any "public information obtained through reverse engineering" as far as I remember.
> Correct me if I'm wrong.



Okay, I guess that's the law he broke. So my point still stands, he broke a law and I think he should pay for it. Unless of course, he is not guilty. Remember I'm talking through the laws eyes, not personal opinions. Just because someone does not like a law does not mean the law is no longer valid.

Edit : Okay, and some opinion.. I don't really like people who rebel that hugely against the law.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Edit : Okay, and some opinion.. I don't really like people who rebel that hugely against the law.



It's the democratic citizen's duty to participate in the forming of the state, demonstrate and raise doubts when something seems wrong.
Also Sony raided him b4 he "broke this law", anyway I'm out of here.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not bad for me, if Sony broke a law they should both be in trouble. As simple as that. But thanks for keeping things legit and mature.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You will find that having oodles of money puts you at a significant advantage in any legal system.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't Sony raid him after he released his reversed engineered tech? If not, you're right though, some people can buy there way through the legal system, but I would just call it paying fines.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Didn't Sony raid him after he released his reversed engineered tech? If not, you're right though, some people can buy there way through the legal system, but I would just call it paying fines.
> 
> They raided him twice, before he released it, then out of revenge he did so even though they took away all his hardware, then some months afterwards they did so again.
> Also, releasing his own tech doesn't break the law, what did break it was the information about Sony's software/hardware structure he released with the bible, not his selfmade OtherOs support.
> ...



Shouldn't have said this, really, you shouldn't


----------



## Terminator02 (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and so that makes it ok that someone can unjustly be sentenced because their opponent has more cash?

Edit: talking about before he released his bible, when he first got raided


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Terminator02 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did he really get raided before releasing the bible? If so, how did he know Sony was doing anything illegal? And I will call it paying fines. The only people mad at that would be people who dislike Sony. And someone being sentenced because their opponent has more cash, I can't talk on. Never witnessed it.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Did he really get raided before releasing the bible? If so, how did he know Sony was doing anything illegal? And I will call it paying fines. The only people mad at that would be people who dislike Sony. And someone being sentenced because their opponent has more cash, I can't talk on. Never witnessed it.


He was raided before releasing the bible. Sony did not know he was doing anything illegal.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


except for the fact that Sony didnt commit any crime, the house raid was done by the german police
now im not to sure how things like this work in germany but here, a company would present a case to the police, and if the police think they have a case against the opposing party, they would then conduct a house raid
now the problem was graf threatened sony a week or 2 before saying he would release his findings if they didnt stop messing with hackers (which he did anyway after the first house raid, then he committed a crime), you cant just go around publicly threatening companies with sensitive information and expect to get away with it, its blackmail


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Jun 19, 2011)

Annieone23 said:
			
		

> *GEOHOT DID NOT SPEND THE MONEY, THERE IS PROOF HE DONATED IT*


On the other hand, he admitted to taking a vacation.
Now, when somebody asks for donations, *you're assuming that they do not have the money to afford luxuries*.
The money that he spent on his vacation could have been spent on the legal fees, and so he could have stopped accepting donations a day earlier.

It doesn't matter whether he donated the remainder of the donations.
Nobody gave him money so that he could give it to charities. They gave him money to defend the rights of PS3 consumers.


----------



## Assax (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Did he really get raided before releasing the bible? If so, how did he know Sony was doing anything illegal? And I will call it paying fines. The only people mad at that would be people who dislike Sony. And someone being sentenced because their opponent has more cash, I can't talk on. Never witnessed it.



Yes, he did get raided before he released the bible, afterwards he basically called Sony out because he's so dedicated to his work, that's what he means when he says:" But i’m ready to stand up for everything i said and go to jail for that too."
In case of someone being sentenced because their opponent has more cash, thats what basically happened to Geohot, he ran out of money before the court hearings have even begun, he did not have much choice but to settle with Sony, he couldn't pay his lawyers anymore (not trying to defend Geohot in any way for leaving the scene like he did after his big promises etc.)


Also you're not right on this one Terminator, Sony knew he was working on OtherOs, as far as I know he even "threatened" to release it if they would go ahead suing everyone, afterwards he got raided and he really did release his bible.

Summary of Geohot and Sony:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110327185437805
Some stuff is weird, such as his lawyers saying SCEA is not a subsidiary of Sony Japan.
Anyway, both sides haven't played fair.


----------



## Dimensional (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Okay, I guess that's the law he broke. So my point still stands, he broke a law and I think he should pay for it. Unless of course, he is not guilty. Remember I'm talking through the *laws eyes*, not personal opinions. Just because someone does not like a law does not mean the law is no longer valid.


Last time I checked, the law was suppose to be blind. That is how it's suppose to be anyways. It's blind as to not make a hasty judgement before all the facts are presented. Now, the only problem with the law is that Judges have to work through as many cases in a year as possible. It's not about being right or wrong anymore, it's about putting as much paper work on your side of the scales to make it tip in your favor. If you overload a judge with tons of documents, he is most likely to rule on your favor because he doesn't want to or has the time to look it over. The legal system isn't perfect. It's a rat race.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

Assax said:
			
		

> Anyway, both sides haven't played fair [in the case of George Hotz].


I disagree. The political and financial clout of the players in that case was incredibly unbalanced. The law in the US only "plays fair" if those factors are equal; in short, the courts can be bought. Sony had (and has) the sympathy of the US state and the Supreme Court, while Hotz could only rely on decentralized sects of support from those who have been following his cause. Hotz could not even afford a lawyer on his own, while Sony's reserves for such civil suits is basically infinite. In my opinion, the legal system holds the deepest antipathy towards the masses. Example: The US Supreme Court has recently allowed big business (I'm currently thinking of AT&T) to block class-action lawsuits if disgruntled customers ever decide to pool their hopes with each other in any future struggles. No better way to make it easier on big business than to divide the opposition using the Federal Arbitration Act. This is only a taste of what Hotz was up against, and I'm convinced he knew it. If he played dirty, it was only because the scales were skewed to begin with. To summarize: Sony and Hotz are not, in the least, equals in the US political system. Thus, they cannot be held as morally equal, either.

Slightly on topic: Chokolo is in the same boat, only worse. He deserves our nigh unconditional support against his "legal" oppressors.
@omgpwn666: Your interpretation of the legal system is incredibly anachronistic.


----------



## nl255 (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Assax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So I guess you hate the Underground Railroad then.  After all, what they did (helping slaves escape to Canada) was against the law as well, and the law is the law right?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

nl255 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 - MEGAMANTROTSKY

I disagree.


----------



## nl255 (Jun 19, 2011)

Well, SCEE better watch out because if Graf survives prison he will be in a very good position to get revenge.  Not only will be be much stronger physically than he was before going in, he will also have learned quite a few other new skills (improvised weapons (i.e. shivs), burglary skills (including bypassing alarms and such), dirty fighting techniques, and probably several others) that he could easily put to work going after Sony.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jun 19, 2011)

chartube12 said:
			
		

> Geohot took a vacation with the money. No joke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ow.. OW.. OWWWWW! The stupidity in this thread! OW! CRAP! IT HURTS SO MUCH!!!


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> Your disagreement doesn't hold much weight to me. You view law--black-letter or otherwise--through the snout of an old vacuum, devoid of all social and historical considerations. I take this position with you for the following reasons:
> 
> 1.) You fail to even consider basic skepticism when it comes to laws directly affecting the relation of the masses, big business, and the capitalist state. You scorn the basic question of legal matters handed down since Roman antiquity: Cui bono? (Who profits?) And, in what historical context? This flaw rears its ugly head all throughout your reasoning. Regardless of who it protects--or doesn't protect--you uphold the law as a categorical imperative unto itself. Your opinion on the matters of slave labor laws (which were, of course, enacted through the influence of the Southern plantation owners), even when it is in disagreement, is callous and shallow. You fail to render any real _judgment_ or _opinion_ on any of it. You do not even say that the strife of bondage during the 19th century is backward, or even wrong; you _only_ say that you're "not a fan of that one, *but it is the law*", thus rendering, ultimately, your _basic agreement_ with one of the basic tenets of the infamous Dred Scott decision, which allowed the Southern states to claim any and all escaped slaves from the North, back into the bondage of the big landowners, _since it is the law, after all_. But of course, how could I be so rude? I'm guessing you're probably "not a fan of that one" either, right? Lincoln, bourgeois though he was, in the end had to ignore the Supreme Court to secure Union victory and black freedom when he suspended the writs of habeas corpus. I suspect that Lincoln breaking the "law" in the interests of the slaves and the Union must rankle your fur quite a bit.
> ...





Spoiler



It's arguable that in the past Sony had attempted to hack their customers with a policy of distrust and secrecy. I hope you remember the rootkit scandal. Who are you to say that my opposition to Sony's policies are "not too smart"? If standing with the customers reduces my intelligence, than I proudly claim the mantle of stupidity. Also, contrary to your claims, I did not use the word "bad" in that post that I made. Get stuffed.


----------



## Nujui (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> nl255 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're not a "fan' of that one....Ok, I really don't see how that works.


----------



## Rydian (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stop dodging the question and post which law you appear to "know" that he broke.

If you need to look up which specific one it is, here's a copy of German law (in English) for 'ya.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/statutes.htm


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 19, 2011)

Took me a while to read this whole thread, and I can not wrap my mind around your stupidity and blind ignorance.

So, this response of yours REALLY set me off.



			
				omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Okay, I guess that's the law he broke. So my point still stands, he broke a law and I think he should pay for it. Unless of course, he is not guilty. Remember I'm talking through the laws eyes, not personal opinions. Just because someone does not like a law does not mean the law is no longer valid.
> 
> Edit : Okay, and some opinion.. I don't really like people who rebel that hugely against the law.
> 
> ...



Oh, you got Rydian on your ass now.  THIS is gonna be a fun show


----------



## DarkLG (Jun 19, 2011)

<!--quoteo(post=3724536:date=Jun 18 2011, 11:42 PM:name=MEGAMANTROTSKY)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MEGAMANTROTSKY @ Jun 18 2011, 11:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724536"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=3724471:date=Jun 18 2011, 11:51 PM:name=omgpwn666)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(omgpwn666 @ Jun 18 2011, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724471"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your disagreement doesn't hold much weight to me. You view law--black-letter or otherwise--through the snout of an old vacuum, devoid of all social and historical considerations. I take this position with you for the following reasons: 

1.) You fail to even consider basic skepticism when it comes to laws directly affecting the relation of the masses, big business, and the capitalist state. You scorn the basic question of legal matters handed down since Roman antiquity: Cui bono? (Who profits?) And, in what historical context? This flaw rears its ugly head all throughout your reasoning. Regardless of who it protects--or doesn't protect--you uphold the law as a categorical imperative unto itself. Your opinion on the matters of slave labor laws (which were, of course, enacted through the influence of the Southern plantation owners), even when it is in disagreement, is callous and shallow. You fail to render any real <i>judgment</i> or <i>opinion</i> on any of it. You do not even say that the strife of bondage during the 19th century is backward, or even wrong; you <i>only</i> say that you're "not a fan of that one, <b>but it is the law</b>", thus rendering, ultimately, your <i>basic agreement</i> with one of the basic tenets of the infamous Dred Scott decision, which allowed the Southern states to claim any and all escaped slaves from the North, back into the bondage of the big landowners, <i>since it is the law, after all</i>. But of course, how could I be so rude? I'm guessing you're probably "not a fan of that one" either, right? Lincoln, bourgeois though he was, in the end had to ignore the Supreme Court to secure Union victory and black freedom when he suspended the writs of habeas corpus. I suspect that Lincoln breaking the "law" in the interests of the slaves and the Union must rankle your fur quite a bit.

2.) You have failed utterly to meet even the basic standard of proof to support your belief in the legal system in this thread. The posters who are admittedly in support of Chokolo have asked you to cite which law he actually broke. You did nothing, all the while repeating your calumny and intense dislike of those "who rebel against the law". In the end, one of your opponents had to do it for you. Somewhat admirably, you did not let that stop you. But this only further reveals the process you've taken in this whole thread: You cross your arms and snort at the opponents of corporate hegemony. When you don't get your way, you shout, making even less sense. Then, incredulously, you try to undertake a one-man pigpile upon your opponents when they <i>provide you with some basis for your argument</i>. One can only drop their lower jaw in amazement.

3.) It is curious how frequently you seem to always be in the camp of the bourgeoisie when legal matters come to call. Your reading of legal matters is still an anachronism, but what makes it even worse is that your approach <i>implicitly comes from the right.</i> Your defense of the law concerning Chokolo, likewise, lies squarely with the reactionaries. All matters, including the text of the law, are never self-referential in the way that deconstructionists like it to be. You would do well to realize this, considering that the text of these "laws" (cited earlier) only defend big business.

You can reply to this, or not at all. I don't care. All I ask is that you please dismount the high horse of maturity you claim to have mounted, or, in my opinion, blundered upon; If you actually stop to take a closer look, you'll find that it is nothing more than a broken-down nag.


Spoiler



I only just discovered a reply you made to me. Earlier, you said this:
<!--quoteo(post=3724187:date=Jun 18 2011, 08:51 PM:name=omgpwn666)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(omgpwn666 @ Jun 18 2011, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724187"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That was not too smart to say. That's your opinion that a company does not need to be listened to because they did a "bad" job. I assume you meant bad since you're talking about Sony, the people who got hacked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's arguable that in the past Sony had attempted to hack their customers with a policy of distrust and secrecy. I hope you remember the rootkit scandal. Who are you to say that my opposition to Sony's policies are "not too smart"? If standing with the customers reduces my intelligence, than I proudly claim the mantle of stupidity. Also, contrary to your claims, I did not use the word "bad" in that post that I made. Get stuffed.


<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--quoteo(post=3724589:date=Jun 19 2011, 12:52 AM:name=plasma dragon007)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(plasma dragon007 @ Jun 19 2011, 12:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724589"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Took me a while to read this whole thread, and I can not wrap my mind around your stupidity and blind ignorance.

So, this response of yours REALLY set me off.

<!--quoteo(post=3724471:date=Jun 19 2011, 04:51 AM:name=omgpwn666)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(omgpwn666 @ Jun 19 2011, 04:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724471"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Okay, I guess that's the law he broke. So my point still stands, he broke a law and I think he should pay for it. Unless of course, he is not guilty. Remember I'm talking through the laws eyes, not personal opinions. Just because someone does not like a law does not mean the law is no longer valid.

Edit : Okay, and some opinion.. I don't really like people who rebel that hugely against the law.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
So I guess you hate the Underground Railroad then.  After all, what they did (helping slaves escape to Canada) was against the law as well, and the law is the law right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Through the laws eyes that was illegal. So yes, the law is the law. I'm not a fan of that one, but it is the law. But nice try, I see what you tried to do there. I'm glad they could escape, but if they did get caught, they know there would be consequences.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So let's make a basic comparison.  Right now, Graf is being oppressed by Sony and "the law" because he re-enabled a feature that was advertised with the console that Sony had proceeded to remove with future updates.  He is being sued and facing probable jail time for modifying something which he has <b>PURCHASED</b> with his own <b>MONEY</b>.  Still with me?  Okay.

So how about this.  You buy a brand spankin new car from, oh, let's say Chevy.  You buy a nice new SS Camero.  Got it fully loaded, as it was advertised, and paid the whole price for it.  Cars are fucking notorious for recalls though, am I right?  So Chevy recalls some part of it (and what part doesn't make a damn difference.  Let's say they recalled the front struts because they could blow too easily if you hit a small pothole.)  So you bring your car to the dealer to get serviced and have the struts replaced with the new ones, as per the recall.  HOWEVER, to help combat the struts blowing, Chevy had to replace them with ones that were softer and absorbed more impact.  Now, you like to race your Camero, and you liked how the stiffer suspension made it drive in high-speed situations.  Still with me?  When you bought the car, I doubt Chevy said "Go ahead and change whatever you want on this!".  There was more likely a fine print that said something along the lines of "We can not be held responsible for any damages caused by using non-OEM parts."  But, nowhere does it say that you can't change it, lest you be sued.  So you go and buy new struts, and you get new tires, lower your suspension a little, and tint your windows while you're at it.  All of a sudden, Chevy sends you a letter fining you for 80 grand or jail time for making unauthorized modifications.  The shit?  That's not right and wouldn't happen.  Chevy is oppressing you for modifying something you bought and legally own.  Transfer of title and ownership leaves the property in your hands.  If you were to light it on fire one day, you wouldn't get sued by Chevy for lighting their car on fire (though you WOULD get fined and arrested for making a hazardous situation).

Back to reality - Leave it at this: Graf is being oppressed for <b>USING</b> his own <b>PROPERTY</b>.

Back to the past:  Blacks were being oppressed too (slavery).  If you hold the law so high and mighty, why don't you illegally own a few slaves then? Because back then, it was right.  And any slaves who escaped were brought back to their plantation and likely beaten or shot.  But, you know, <b>oppression (slavery) is okay because the law said it was</b>.

You're such a sheep.  Just because the law says something is wrong, does it really mean it is?  (referencing another recent user-submitted news post, or was it blog?) I would <strike>love</strike> hate to see your opinion on gay marriage.  Must be wrong because the law says so, though, right?

These days, money will buy you almost anything.  If you have money you're gonna be on top even if you're wrong.

I would post a lot more but, to avoid writing a book, I won't.  Also, I've been awake since 10:30, and it's almost 2 AM the next day.  Off to minecraft.

<!--quoteo(post=3724536:date=Jun 19 2011, 05:42 AM:name=MEGAMANTROTSKY)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MEGAMANTROTSKY @ Jun 19 2011, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724536"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-snip long post-<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude I fucking love you right now.  Made so many good points.  Which is okay, because, you know, free speech says so.  Gotta make sure the law says something is good before you do it.

Oh, and omgpwn666, I hope that one day, when you're old enough to drive (because you seem to have the mentality of a 12 year old), I really hope you get a ticket by a disgruntled cop for stopping 2 inches over the limit line.  You'd better be careful and NEVER drive half a mile an hour over the speed limit or stop a hair over the limit line.  Because the law says that's illegal. I highly doubt you're gonna be so submissive when you get ticketed from driving 55 in a 50 or for stopping over the limit line.

Edit:

<!--quoteo(post=3724582:date=Jun 19 2011, 06:47 AM:name=Rydian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rydian @ Jun 19 2011, 06:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724582"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=3724212:date=Jun 18 2011, 09:08 PM:name=omgpwn666)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(omgpwn666 @ Jun 18 2011, 09:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724212"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=3724210:date=Jun 19 2011, 02:05 AM:name=Magmorph)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Magmorph @ Jun 19 2011, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=3724210"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What law did he break?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will assume you're kidding.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Stop dodging the question and post which law you appear to "know" that he broke.

If you need to look up which specific one it is, here's a copy of German law (in English) for 'ya.
<a href="http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/statutes.htm" target="_blank">http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/statutes.htm</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh, you got Rydian on your ass now.  THIS is gonna be a fun show <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If their was a way to rep people here I would rep both of you's lol you both are correct that kid(hopefully its a kid because if it's 18+ man you sure are stupid) is a sheep completely not all laws are there to protect some are actually there only because money that people where paid in order to make them a law.


----------



## Sterling (Jun 19, 2011)

Holy shit, don't quote those posts. Or at least spoiler them like this:



Spoiler: Megamantrotsky




text here



As to the topic, like I said in the third post, he deserves all the help he can get. He has fought to enable a feature that was advertised, and sold many PS3 units. He made some mistakes, but his intentions were in our best interests. Those of you who read the law as black and white, it's actually a rainbow of colours that can be bent and shaped by anyone who has the sense and backing to do it. It doesn't mean they're right to do so, but if none of us decide to get a new hand, we all will lose to the dealer at some point.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

I left for a while and got lots of immature posts. Nice, what I expected from you all though. 
MEGAMANTROTSKY, your comment is too long to read... I get it, you're mad at me. Haha
And Rydian, it has already been posted, 





			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Article 6 of the 1991 EU Computer Programs Directive allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability, but prohibits it for the purposes of creating a competing product, and also prohibits the public release of information obtained through reverse engineering of software.



Anyways, he broke a law and needs to pay for it.


----------



## Rydian (Jun 19, 2011)

Last I checked Linux for the PS3 is free.


----------



## DarkLG (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I left for a while and got lots of immature posts. Nice, what I expected from you all though.
> MEGAMANTROTSKY, your comment is too long to read... I get it, you're mad at me. Haha
> And Rydian, it has already been posted,
> 
> ...


Might not relate but say you driving and a cop pulls you over and says " You blew a stop sign." Problem is your on a road that has no stop signs but the cop gives you the ticket just because he feels like it. Seeing as you say the law is the law that means your going to pay that ticket since the cop is the law and you follow the law right??


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I left for a while and got lots of immature posts. Nice, what I expected from you all though.
> MEGAMANTROTSKY, your comment is too long to read... I get it, you're mad at me. Haha
> And Rydian, it has already been posted,
> 
> ...



That is absolutely perfect.  +internets.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I left for a while and got lots of immature posts. Nice, what I expected from you all though.
> MEGAMANTROTSKY, your comment is too long to read... I get it, you're mad at me. Haha
> ...


Save your bait and your toll bridge. There's really nothing more for me to say to you, save this: The paucity of your replies up until this point has only underlined the paucity of your vision. To paraphrase Trotsky, take your smirking ignorance and place it in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.


----------



## Masterpaul (Jun 19, 2011)

Donated a quite hefty amount... for a simple reason.. I cant do what I want with My hardware? Fuck THAT!
I hope my well earned cash is put to a good reason.


----------



## omatic (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> I left for a while and got lots of immature posts. Nice, what I expected from you all though.
> MEGAMANTROTSKY, your comment is too long to read... I get it, you're mad at me. Haha
> And Rydian, it has already been posted,
> 
> ...



For someone who believes in the law so hard, you don't give much consideration to a presumption of innocence, or the burden of proof shouldered by an accuser. The issue here is that Graf doesn't have enough cash to fight in court. Therefore, he will lose because he can't keep up with his accuser in legal fees, not because he was able to have his case argued with the same vigor as his opponent.

Also, you really should question which laws are appropriate and which aren't. I hope you don't actually have an unquestioning worship of laws, and this is just an act for the internets. When people start getting arrested for participating in online discussions indirectly related to hacking game consoles due to a recent law revision, I wonder if you'll be as devout. If you don't think that'll ever happen, do some research as to how corporations have grabbed substantial influence in law making around the world, and how they've used said influence to increase revenue. Then, remind yourself of what Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are.


----------



## Gagarin (Jun 19, 2011)

Sizing of liberty (jail time) is only for violation of criminal code. For what he had done, I assume he got sued in civilian one (only monetary punishment). So unless it is a law in Germany that you can not hack your system, he should not go to the jail.


----------



## sergster1 (Jun 19, 2011)

If i didnt get a ticket from the MTA (they are just as bad as sony giving a 16 year old a 100 buck ticket cause he was stuck in manhatten without a student metrocard and lives an brooklyn) i would have gladly donated ~50 dollars


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 19, 2011)

Yeah, I'm done arguing. Good day everyone, I'm too overwhelmed with stuff to keep reading. Lol


----------



## lithium210 (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> shinkukage09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



what law?? I bet if nintendo took away every app on the 3ds or even the "3d" effect, you'd complain. Graf didnt do anything wrong, he brought back something that we paid for. If it involved piracy, then its wrong.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm done arguing. Good day everyone, I'm too overwhelmed with stuff to keep reading. Lol



WHAT LAW DID HE BREAK?


----------



## Sterling (Jun 19, 2011)

@Nathan Drake:

This first though:
http://gbatemp.net/t297848-graf-chokolo-ne...t&p=3724258

http://gbatemp.net/t297848-graf-chokolo-ne...t&p=3724582


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 19, 2011)

Sterling said:
			
		

> @Nathan Drake"
> http://gbatemp.net/t297848-graf-chokolo-ne...t&p=3724582



Well, that doesn't help. omgpwn666 seems to have a great idea of what law was broken, as he has gone on and on. He preaches on and on about the law, and how Graf deserves what is coming and all that. He has not once actually said what Graf may be guilty of, even though he believes that Graf deserves the prison time.

As far as technology goes, it doesn't seem like he actually broke any law, and if anything, Sony is trying to get him sent to prison on endless court fees he will lose the ability to pay. Nothing about the situation seems right.

Is anybody sure that anything was posted before the initial raid? I'm not sure if Germany has anything regarding illegal search and seizure procedures though, so it may be irrelevant.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jun 19, 2011)

cant he back out or something which would put him on the safe side. he has been acting bravely but this doesnt work in a world where things go on legality and punishments. he might as well try to look for a way out and even if it means losing his principles
i dont want to say this but IMHO, when yer principles promote doing things that are not essential to life or living, then its better to give them up FOR your own life, honor and wealth (or someone else's ofcourse)


----------



## DarkLG (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm done arguing. Good day everyone, I'm too overwhelmed with stuff to keep reading. Lol


You never had anything to argue seeing as your logic has many flaws glad your done posting your stupidity though


----------



## Coconuts 500 (Jun 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> What can I say, you're all hackers and law breakers, of course you would not agree with me. I'm on the laws side, which I guess makes me a troll. My logic is using the law, yours is "Why can't I do this? Because they say not to?"... That would never stand in court.


I think you should be banned from this site and locked down in a dungeon. You are for fascism and that makes you a dangerous person.

Please leave us, and please stop talking to people. You've been brainwashed, and who knows, maybe you will manage brainwash some other weak-willed person? That's very immoral.


----------



## YayMii (Jun 20, 2011)

@omgpwn666: All I see you saying is "I disagree so it has to be against the law". Fact is, the only law he's breaking is that he doesn't have enough money for legal fees. Sony is only winning because they're a corporation with tons of money. Your broken 'logic' has been avoiding this the whole time.
I applaud your great deal of ignorance and stupidity you have displayed here, and you might want to know what is going on before shoving your sheepish comments into a debate in the future. Have a nice day.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Jun 20, 2011)

Takes so many people to call one person stupid.


----------



## ferofax (Jun 20, 2011)

get him Miles Edgeworth. It'll be better for a counter-attack by completely undermining Sony's claims.


----------



## shadowmanwkp (Jun 20, 2011)

For the love of whatnot people, keep on topic. It's as derailed as it is, and the person responsible for that is not posting anymore. Forget about it and just post about the matter at hand, we're not studying laws here.


----------



## PsyBlade (Jun 20, 2011)

Gagarin said:
			
		

> Sizing of liberty (jail time) is only for violation of criminal code. For what he had done, I assume he got sued in civilian one (only monetary punishment). So unless it is a law in Germany that you can not hack your system, he should not go to the jail.


AFAIK there is such a law (versions of DMCA got forced onto many other contries too by the US)
plus you get jail time if you don't pay the monetary punishment (eg because you can't) (only applies to punishment not damages or lawyers and such AFAIK)


----------

