Talk:Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current[edit]

Current event unfolding here, suspect the case may have the potential to form significant legal precedent.

Groklaw coverage would certainly seem to favor notability in this case.

As an aside, this article was in the middle of being edited when I had to take a dinner break. G7 is an erroneous classification of speedy deletion, as the article blank was only due to my decision to try to come up with some fresh stuff. Shentino (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no precedent was set (Hotz and Sony settled), can this be deleted now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.118.42 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a case is settled doesn't mean the article should be just deleted. It was notable enough for an article creation and is still notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PayPal, Google and YouTube[edit]

On George Hotz#Sony lawsuit is this statement:

Sony responded with a lawsuit and demanded social media sites, including YouTube, to hand over IP addresses of people who visited Geohot's social pages and videos. PayPal has granted Sony access to Geohot's PayPal account, and the judge of the case granted Sony permission to view the IP addresses of everyone who visited geohot.com

The last sentence about viewing IP visitors to geoHot.com is already on this article for March 6. However, I don't see anything mentioned here about PayPal giving access or Google/YouTube being petitioned for IPs of visitors or if they accepted this. It seems like critical information. The reference listed for this (29 as of my reading) is JoyStiq. When I view that page though, neither 'paypal' or 'youtube' show up in the article. So, I am not sure if this is valid or not. I am going to add fact tags to this. If someone thinks this is true, please help me find some sources so we can add the sources to Holtz' page's claims and add the info with sources here. DB (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Anonymous isn't a cracking group. Why is presented as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.121.167 (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Anonymous attacks in response to lawsuit Outdated?[edit]

Wasn't it confirmed to be Lulzsec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.123.119 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]