1,751 posts since
Feb 29, 2008
505. Feb 25, 2011 1:18 PM (in response to Tears_of_Anubis)
Re: Firmware update 3.56 causing my PS3 to not recognize Blu-ray
Videos that may be eye openers
Before a mod thinks about locking this thread, The videos were recorded legally.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCU1j6YKfrA
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwd8YzJEk10
Thanks goes to AlhpaOmehga and his brass ****.
thats funny he's getting you to follow him hook, line, & sinker now. these were not recorded legally at all. first off, AlhpaOmehga (curiousecat) lies in the first place, telling them he's not in their system, or that he doesn't even have a ps3, straight lies as he has had repairs done on his ps3s through sony. also, seeing as California & Washington (where he lives) are both 2-party states, both parties must agree to the recording of the calls and he never tells them he is recording, so these are, in fact illegal. yes, federal law says different, but federal law is only called into question when the parties are from 2 different states with conflicting laws, and again, both of the states in question are 2-party states, so federal law doesn't apply here. here's a little link to fill you in on the laws concerning this: - http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm
Recording Telephone Calls with Parties in Different Jurisdictions
Federal law may apply when the conversation is between parties who are in different states, although it is unsettled whether a court will hold in a given case that federal law "pre-empts" state law, but either state may choose to enforce its own laws. Therefore it is better to err on the side of caution when recording an interstate telephone call.
Although California is a two-party state, it is also legal to record a conversation if you include a beep on the recorder and for the parties to hear. This information was included with my telephone bill.California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all parties to the conversation consent (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632). There is no statutory business telephone exception and the relevant case law all but excludes this possibility. California courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded. Violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A civil plaintiff may recover the greater of $3,000 or three times the amount of any actual damages sustained.
Washington requires the consent of all parties. Some companies manage to work around that by going to the Indian reservations or any federally owned property to make the call - Federal law is a one party consent.
There are two additional Pieces of evidence
Exhibit A: There is a recording that states that "This call maybe recorded for quality and training purposes.
Exhibit B: The recording device can not be manually disconnected, paused, or stopped upon request.
So you are the jury, you decide who is rite or who is wrong.
And I would appreciate your comments.