Their code, their device. Cloned devices wouldn't have this problem if they wrote their own or even did any work to prevent this type of problem for their end users.
I remember when running unsigned code on a PSP or even a PS3 would brick your unit, yet most people considered this just normal protection to try to get around. People getting salty about bricking their PS3 with unsigned code knew the risks when they started. It's funny now that the meta is to defeat the hack within the hack. Oh well.
I remember when running unsigned code on a PSP or even a PS3 would brick your unit, yet most people considered this just normal protection to try to get around. People getting salty about bricking their PS3 with unsigned code knew the risks when they started. It's funny now that the meta is to defeat the hack within the hack. Oh well.
In this thread no one cares about the part of responsibility R4i has in this.
Oh please. Even before this happened, he hated gateway with a passion. He's just acting as if he predicted the apocalypse and wants to feel superior. Last week he was this close to getting banned along with JohnnyBlaze1986 for flamming. Why do you think gamefan5 was begging him not to start the flame war.
Gateway was not "going after end-users". They were trying to tarnish the competition's name. And they've done just that. You may hate Gateway, but they are now the only working 3DS flash cart.
If you want to be pissed at someone then be pissed at the people that stole Gateway's code and claimed it was their own. They're the ones that triggered this. They stole code, didn't test it, and now it has destroyed consoles. Who cares if Gateway did it on purpose? It was their competition's responsibility to check for this kind of thing before they go throwing out an update to all of their customers that destroyed their consoles.
If you want to be pissed at someone then be pissed at the people that stole Gateway's code and claimed it was their own. They're the ones that triggered this. They stole code, didn't test it, and now it has destroyed consoles. Who cares if Gateway did it on purpose? It was their competition's responsibility to check for this kind of thing before they go throwing out an update to all of their customers that destroyed their consoles.
Nobody is forced to buy any product. That does not absolve the manufacturer of tort or criminal liability resulting from their maliciousness or negligence. If I try to save a few dollars by selling tires I know are likely to be defective, that I know have a higher than normal probability of exploding, then I cannot say, "nobody is forced to buy my tires," when I get dragged into court for wrongful death.
Gateway should have a chance to prove they are not responsible for any civil or criminal liabilities in a court of law. Unfortunately, they are an anonymous hacker group that operates out of a third world country and cannot be held responsible by a just legal system. I can almost guarantee that if they operated out of the United States, not only would they have their assets seized by Nintendo, as their entire business model is almost exclusively based around piracy and not any semi-legitimate use, but they would also almost certainly be held partially or fully responsible for any damage to consumers' devices caused by their malicious code.
And, they could possibly be facing felony criminal charges for creating and distributing malicious code as well as vandalism.
This is basically equivalent to street fight between two criminal gangs, with naive consumers getting injured in the crossfire.
It's funny how the clones "stole" the code, but people "pirate" games.
One weight two measures.
One weight two measures.
This analogy does not apply.
No one is dying and the 3DS cart business is not all that legit to start.
People shouldn't buy Flashcarts from people who are unable to support them.
It *SHOULD* have been obvious that r4i never ever intended to support their product, because they are incapable of doing so.
r4i is the negligent party ... THEY DISTRIBUTED the bad firmware.
People downloaded *FROM R4i's site*.
This is a r4i problem.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 278
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 32
- Location
- Monterrey
- Website
- www.dajavax.tk
- XP
- 194
- Country
They distributed it to every bricked console.
By distributing it ... they gave their seal of approval.
r4i is the source of the firmware that bricked their user's consoles.
However, they compiled it and released it to the public. As it has been said like 100 times, the launcher was built with a code that would never trigger a brick if the launcher gets modified soemhow, for example, corruption of the SD. Since the modified code won't work, R4i disabled this protection leaving the brick code free to activate in any moment, so yes, they are to blame since they didn't remove this other part of the code as well.
But they did distribute it as though they had written it. No where on R4i's site does it say "We didn't write or test this code so if it breaks your shit tough luck"
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,736
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,532
- Country
Gotta agree with this. It's "their" firmware bricking consoles. Not Gateway's.
I'd prefer if we had at least one other team doing original work. Then nobody would have to worry about this type of stuff at all. Oh well.
It is not an analogy. It is an example.
Companies can be held responsible (at least legally) for damages arising from the use of their product and cannot simply claim, "no one is forced to buy [their product]," as you wrote. There are thousands of other possible examples that do not involve tort from injury. Simple proof of minor negligence is often enough to prove the manufacturer liable for damages (such as Apple selling iPhones with antennas that did not work when held in a certain manner). If Gateway is not just negligent, but actually purposefully included malicious code, that is a slam-dunk case.
They didn't know it would happen, it wasn't done intentionally. That doesn't give them an excuse for not developing their own product. Gateway was the one that created it for its intention of BRICKING USER DEVICES. THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
If I had HIV and I knowingly gave them to you, and then you proceeded to spread it to someone else (unknowingly), who is more at fault?
Similar threads
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
Many schools use some form of firewall or protection, to prevent certain types of content from being viewable. -
-
@
Bunjolio:
our school blocks stuff but allows some stuff, its annoying, they legit can see our screens if they want -
-
@
SylverReZ:
There was a time where we were able to bypass the school's network using a VPN that wasn't blocked on the radar. Can't exactly remember the name, but I was able to watch YouTube.
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
One of the sites that weren't blocked on the school's network was some file uploading sites. I would upload some games, write down the URL and take it to school one day.
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
I did it when the teachers werent looking ofc. I even managed to take in a USB stick that wasn't allowed.
-
@
Bunjolio:
my school has a chrome extension called light speed filter agent and it legit blocks YouTube pfps since the file cdn(I think aka yt3.ggpht.com) is classed as mature
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
It was easy to bypass some of the restrictions, as one of the admins left a registry key in the administrative shares drive, which allowed me to get around the blocking of some sites.
-
-
-
-
-