Connectix Wins Sony Playstation Appeal 148
In one of the many submissions concerning the recent Connectix victory: Enosson writes, "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the lower court injunction prohibiting Connectix from selling Virtual Game Station or using the Sony BIOS in developing new versions of it. The decision says that its use of the copyrighted BIOS in reverse engineering was "fair use," and that any "shoddiness" in the VGS product did not tarnish Sony's PlayStation trademark. The full text of the decision is available." There is also, as you would expect, mention of the ruling on the Connectix site as well.
Hmmmm... (Score:1)
Never assume. Let them know. (Score:1)
Although you're probably right, please never assume when it comes to something this important. Instead, make sure by informing their legal dept [mailto] of this. Other contact info is available here [eff.org].
Re:Cluestick Time... (Score:1)
- > (and no, I won't say what it is)
Ah, yes... Security through obscurity. Gotta love that <g>.Alex Bischoff
---
I don't see why they *wouldn't* release ... (Score:2)
After all, isn't it true that Sony make all of their profits from the Playstation empire from sales of the games, not the consoles? That in fact, the consoles themselves don't make *any* profit?
That sounds like software, to me... seems they'd have to be a pretty damned stupid company to not release their own PSX emulator.
Oh, wait. I just thought of a reason why they wouldn't release an emulator for the PSX: PSX2.
Since the PSX2 is supposed to be fully compatible with the PSX game titles, it would be a poor marketing move to release a software-PSX right around the time of the PSX2 release
Bummer for Sony. Too bad they didn't think of doing the software-PSX thing a year ago, but then that's the breaks in the high tech world, and I guess they were already raking it in anyway with the game title profits...
lawyer: a bit more (Score:4)
see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
You are pretty much correct here, but let me extend and comment a bit.
The ninth circuit is indeed the most often reversed, but that tends
to be because of "lefty" decisions where ideology prevailed over the law.
Criminal cases in particular, when judges confuse the rights of the
accused and general population with the rights of criminals.
THis is a technical case, and of a type that the 9th gets a disproportionate
share. It has more experince with this type of case than most of the
otehr circutes, and the case doesn't fall into the categories that give
the 9th its bad reputation (I won't name names, but there's a judge known
as "Judge Certiori" for the near automatic review . .
The decision might also be classified as "pro-commerce," taking it
far out of the type of cases that tend to be reviewd.
As far as the weight outside of the 9th, it's not as dismal as you
paint it. The decision is not *binding* precedent outside of the
9th circuit, but it is *persuasive* evidence. That is, a a federal
judge in another circuit *can* decide it's wrong, but will not do so
lightly.
Finally, the Supreme Court, when possible, waits until conflicting
opinions arise between the circuits before it hears an issue. It is
unlikely to hear this case.
hawk, esq.
Not so fast. (Score:1)
However, the judge in the MPAA case has made it explicitly clear that breaking the CSS encryption was about reverse engineering a -protection mechanism-, not software, and that there are many legal precidents that limit reverse engineering in this regard.
I don't agree completely with the judge's interpretation of the "reverse engineering" clause, but IANAL and we'll have to see how the defense handles it.
For now, I believe that the DMCA isn't going anywhere, and it's a legal long shot to apply the "reverse engineering" clause to the DeCSS case.
Reverse engineering can be a curse (Score:1)
This and the CSS case (Score:1)
Looks to me (IANAL) like there could be interesting precedent in this decision for the EFF in their fight to protect the rights of the DeCSS posters. (This should be applicable as it's the same Circuit as the MPAA case so should be usable as precedent.)
Comments from those who are lawyers?
Actually, there's a better reason... (Score:2)
Just one problem... (Score:2)
Translation: Sony's still taking a loss on the hardware. They probably will with the PSX2, too.
Cluestick Time... (Score:3)
Actually, Connectix has been extremely conscientious about antipiracy measures. A "modchip patch" exists for Version 1.0 of the software (which sucked compared to later versions) but no such patch exists for later versions of the software. I'm not even certain it can be done.
Also notable is that CVGS cannot use disk images; you must use CD's. This kills most pirates right there. Those who do have burners are harder to stop, but someone who really wants to pirate software is, simply put, going to do it; you can't stop those people. It's no easier with VGS than a "real" PSX.
Yes, there's still a VERY little-known disk-swap trick (and no, I won't say what it is) that you can do with VGS. You can also do this on a regular PSX, so there's no difference.
So this judge has just made it harder for a company engaged in lawful business to earn its justified profits. And why? To protect a principal.
I think you mean "principle." Last I checked there were no school directors involved here.
But you're wrong about one thing. Sony takes a loss on every console it sells. A rather substantial one at that. This is made up for by game sales, yes. But for every copy of VGS sold, Sony saves money. As much as it makes from more than ten individual non-Sony PSX games, or four Sony-made ones. In other words, each person has to do a lot of pirating before Sony takes a loss. It still earns its justified profits before them.
A quick cruise of Hotline or IRC shows the reality.
Yeah. So you should look at it yourself. PSX games are actually quite hard to get on Hotline or IRC. The process often involves bounces all over the Web, signing oneself up for porn lists and/or ad companies, finding passwords, and downloading obscenely huge files which still take hours to download over even the fastest connections. Of course you might be lucky enough to find a "free" server. In this case each image will take days, as the overwhelming traffic will slow the server to a crawl. These servers don't tend to carry many images (few sites do because of space demands) so you'll be bouncing back and forth between servers, repeating the process multiple times to get all the images you wanted. Oh, and since most PSX backup sites don't actually carry the emulators, once you have the images you need you have to go through the process again to find the emulator, and probably several more times to find a patch that works. And then, of course, the game still has to work with the emu.
My point: this isn't what you're making it out to be. Not at all.
Re:Why is Sony so upset? (Score:1)
1) Due diligence: Sony is a public company so it has a legal obligation to look out for the well being of its investors. Most investors would look at the possibility of a third party developing a work alike solution as a potential for harm. If the stock price were to plummet, even if the actual reason wasn't directly related, investors could go for a class action law suit claiming Sony didn't adhere to due dilligence guidelines.
2) Control: If you can reverse engineer the ROMs in the PlayStation you could probably also reverse engineer a fairly open development environment. Sony is pretty strict about who gets to develop a PlayStation game and who doesn't. This could result in the loss of that control.
3) It's what we've always done!: It's hard for large companies to change with the times. We've seen reported before on Slashdot even with companies that have good intentions such as the various license agreement rumblings or seemingly insane actions by corporate lawyers which are later nullified. Sony hasn't tried to be a nice company, its tried its hardest to destroy its competition so this is even more true here.
4) Piracy: This one will always be present, not everybody plays nice and pays for what they use and from Sony's point of view things like VGS are a weak point in that regard. This in spite of the fact that Connectix has tried hard to make piracy difficult (which is all you EVER can do)
Re:Why is Sony so upset? (Score:1)
Re:Cluestick Time... (Score:2)
Myth. Sony made a loss on the PSX when it was first released. As volumes picked up, manufacturing costs dropped, and they started making a profit. PSX hardware hasn't been sold at a loss for some time now, AFAIK.
Re:Did i forget anything? (Score:2)
They're kind of a mush-like concoction favored as a breakfast food in the southern United States. I think it's related to hominy, but I'm not exactly sure.
Re:Yes! (Score:1)
Dumb suits, lose money, get fired. With any luck
IANAL either, but DMCA may change things (Score:2)
--
I'm happy (Score:2)
I'm happy.
The Precedent We Need (Score:2)
This is extremely good for the DeCSS case. Notice:
Precisely the same reason for going to court.
Fill in the blank. A precedent has been set. We're going to win this one.
Did i forget anything? (Score:1)
What are grits, anyway???
--
" It's a ligne Maginot [maginot.org]-in-the-sky "
Disgusted (Score:1)
Justice, what you get in courts depends on how much you pay.
and the RIAA has more money, so this ruling will have NO impact on deCSS.
and people wonder why federal buildings get bombed by crazed individuals... our courts create those crazed individuals.
you have GOT to love this country.
EFF Lawyers take note! (Score:2)
This spells "kiss my ass" to the DVDCA.
LK
Re:The way it should be. (Score:1)
But for the short while, VPS definetly stood to increase game piracy.
Re:preDMCA vs. postDMCA (Score:1)
So, what happens when someone publishes something that allows both (as DeCSS does)? I bet the courts will have to look back, before DMCA, to settle it.
Re:Disgusted (Score:2)
but don't you think that the RIAA is concerned, now that the 9th circuit has now shown a clear understanding of the value of reverse engineering?
First, their "trade secrets" are blown open, worldwide... and now they know that if their case gets appealed enough, the second highest federal court in California is on the side of DeCSS.
So, just keep sending the EFF money for the DeCSS defense.. and take heart. If the money holds up, to make it though enough appeals, the right side is bound to win.
Very insightful (Score:2)
The whole "technical" aspect never occurred to me... Perhaps because I'm not a lawyer.
Hopefully some moderators will give your comment some +'s.
I guess the 9th would see a larger-than-normal number of such cases, thanks in part to a certain region, in northern California... and the Supremes would certainly give more trust to the 9th's experience in technical issues, since seeing so many technical disputes would have to increase one's knowlege of such matters.
Good News and Bad News (Score:4)
Bad News: 9th Circuit decisions are only useful in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit includes a selection of Western states. While the 9th is the largest, its decisions carry no official weight in the other 8 Court of Appeals jurisdictions.
Really Bad News: The 9th Circuit, in recent years, has been the most liberal, and therefore the most overturned, by the Supreme Court. So, if Sony can get the Supreme Court to accept an appeal, then it just might go Sony's way, after all.
Good News: The Rehnquist Court doesn't accept many cases these days. The 9th circuit's decision will probably stand.
CVGS and me (Score:2)
Big Answer to Big question (Score:1)
I think there are two issues at stake here. The first one is a technicality of patent law. US patent law (thank goodness) still at least pretends to state that you may not patent an idea, only an implementation. This leaves open the possibility of inventing a better mousetrap. Maybe you don't think an inventor should be allowed to replace the coiled spring on a mousetrap with a leaf spring and patent and sell it; I (and the US gov't) do. The right to invent a better way of doing the same thing is fundamental to US IP law.
Another issue at stake is that of interpretation of data. On the one hand, you cannot patent a "language", nor you attempt to prevent anyone else from making an invention that "reads" your language. In other words, you may not use the format of your data as a barrier to competition.
On the other hand is the notion that when you purchase a piece of dead tree containing a copyrighted work, you are able to do whatever you want with that hunk of inert cellulose. You can read it in the living room, you can read it in the dining room. You can give it to a friend. You can throw it away unopened or reread it a thousand times. You can read a book written in a foreign language. You can read it through a magnifying glass. You can give it to a robot and have the robot read it out loud to you. Your friend can read it to you. That one copy is yours alone, to do with whatever you want except distribute copies. There are absolutely no restrictions on when or how you read your book.
Tell me why a CD should be any different. No corporation has any business whatsoever telling me how I may or may not read a book I purchased at a bookstore, listen to a CD from a music store, or eat a sandwich from the deli. I bought it. It's mine and mine alone. My DVDs, Playstation disks, and computer CD-ROMs are no different.
Now let's address the ethical issue. Yes,
The idea of anyone at all - let alone a giga-corp - trying to use IP law to enforce secrecy, restrict information, hinder competition, disenfranchise and nullify the rights of consumers, and speculatively stake out vast expanses of uncharted intellectual space like the greedy companies that founded the American colonies did... not only is this idea abhorrent to those of us who love freedom, it is also against the letter and spirit of US intellectual property law, and we hate scofflaws.
Re:Media format (Score:1)
Re:Big Answer to Big question (Score:1)
Beware of buttering me up with compliments. I have opinions on absolutely everything, and you're only encouraging me.
Remember, advice is worth what you pay for it.
Important Quote (Score:1)
creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
What are you rambling about? (Score:2)
Here's the logic:
Without VGS we can already pirate PSX games via Hotline or IRC, burn them, and play them on modded PSXs. Reverse engineering has nothing to do with this situation, because VGS doesn't exist.
With VGS, and the ability to reverse engineer, we can now play PSX games on the Mac(and maybe PC). It enables the user to play a PSX game on the Mac/PC. Whether the game itself is pirate or not is another question; but if even 1/10 of the buyers of Bleem or VGS buy PSX games, than that's more sales to Sony than would otherwise occur; how does this hurt Sony?
As for whether reverse engineering promotes piracy, I don't see how this reasonably or logically(two different threads) falls out of the system.
-AS
I'll bite (Score:2)
You buy a console from Sony; they make their money (let's say the market is 10,000 people; at $50 profit a console, they will make $500k)
Sony has now licensed the schematics and libraries and tools for this console to 10 game manufacturers, at $40k each; just to be stupid, let's say they only get $10,000 out of each licensee as profit; that's another $100k for Sony.
Each licensee makes 10 games; each consumer buys 2 games from 3 licensees during the lifetime of the system, at $50 each; 10,000 consumers then buy 6 games; 60,000 games at $50 each is $3,000k right off the bat; if each game only gives $10 profit to Sony and $10 to the licensee, then Sony has made $600k from hardware sales and such, and $600k from the games, while the licensees have each made $560k.
Now, lets say a company makes a clone/emulator/whatever.
A few cases for good measure:
Consumer owns both Sony PSX + Emulator
Consumer owns PSX only
Consumer owns Emulator only
We already show that Sony makes money if the only device on the market were PSXs. A good $1,200k. If there exists an emulator only, should we assume the same profit level, because it would/should/could be a perfect substitute?
So what happens when we get both PSXs and emulators? If the market doubles in size because there is no overlap, and the nature of the consumer stays roughly the same, statistically, doesn't Sony make, instead of $1,200k, $1,800k? And in the case where there is overlap, Sony of course makes less money than $1,800k; lets say that of the consumer market, 1 out of 10 people who own a PSX compatible system own an emulator; That means only 1,111 people own emulators but not a PSX. If they follow similar gaming habits, and buy 6 games each, that means Sony gets an additional $67k a year from them... Which doesn't hurt Sony at all!
And if there is signficantly more people buying the emulator, say 3 out of 10 people who play PSX games... 4,286 buyers, or 25,714 more games, or $257k more profit for Sony... So the more systems out there, it seems, the more money Sony can make. Why doe this hurt them, except that it may slow down the adoption of the PSX2?
And don't forget, if you took that last statement seriously, that the PSX2 outclasses most notebooks, PCs, and Macs, so adopters of the PSX2 would not be substituting it with PCs or Macs in the first place!
-AS
Here's a nice, juicy, controversial thought! (Score:2)
So when you do you think this will happen, and will Connectix just sit idly by as it happens? And will Sony actually encourage a 'free' version, if it were to pop out, to spite Connectix, especially as their PSX2 rapidly approaches ground zero?
Essentially/especially since after the next reverse engineering session, it will be porting of PSX from platform to platform, much the same way MAME or Ataris or Commodore 64s or Apple IIs have been emulated for years now?
Just a random thought =)
-AS
Not =) (Score:2)
The emulator itself affects none of those points, and just increases the options available for the consumer who don't necessarily value the above three values of a console, else they would buy a console, I think.
To address your points more succintly:
<em>Anyway, this is clearly not about short term financial profits, but future control.</em>
Obviously; I don't disagree this is why Sony objects to CVGS.
<em>If no one were to buy playstations anymore, because they can play the games on there computers, the PSX would becomes irrelevant.</em>
Are you suggesting that the CVGS and emulators will be replacing the PSX, making the PSX irrelevant? The PSX2 would replace the PSX as well, making it irrelevant. Even so, this brings up a question; Why would people stop buying PSXs with the advent of the emulator? A PSX is still cheaper, simpler, and easier to use than a PC/Mac + emulator.
<em>Game companies could sidestep the middleman and just make PC/Mac games. With better graphics to boot.</em>
They can already do this; the presence or lack of an emulator does not prevent them for designing for the PC; the console is just a simpler platform(stable and consistent) to design and release for than a PC or Mac. About the only threat I can really acknowledge and think of is that if the PSX got reverse engineered, then people could start writing games to the console platform and emulator *without* licensing from Sony, diminishing the overall quality perhaps, or profits/royalties to Sony, whatever. But this is only a threat from the Open Source people anyway =)
<em>Without the emulator, Sony controls the market absolutely. With it, they do not.</em>
This I grant. As far as their plans and future, control of the market makes it easier for them to forcast, predict, and rake in profit.
But isn't this an argument about the consumer's rights as well? That we should be able to play the game on an alternative platform if it's available? Isn't this the same argument as DeCSS?
On the corporate side, it's about control, and on the consumer side, it's about freedom. Balancing the two is pretty difficult, I guess.
-AS
For all those arguing on Sony's side =) (Score:2)
The point I'm making though is that as a consumer, I don't care about Sony's control of the market, except if it's hurting me, and only if it actually is a benefit to me. Sure, sucks for Sony, but isn't that what innovation and competition is about? If Sony wants control, using legal tactics and such isn't the best way. Good products, good PR, good technolgy, good sales is the way, no?
Otherwise, isn't it the same argument for why M$ has done nothing wrong? It just wanted control of the market and it's various directions! Consumers have rights too, and corporations making money, no matter how many lobbiests(sp?) or lawyers they have, do not have more fundamental right than the consumer or individual; both are entities under the law, and have some set of rights.
Monopolies are not one of them, except perhaps earned through good business, and even then, if you get *too* good, the DOJ can give you a visit.
2 cents.
-AS
Re:reverse engineering a -protection mechanism- (Score:1)
By the way, I think that major sections of the DCMA are going to get slammed by the courts, because AFAICT there is no way to enforce some of the provisions without violating enough Constitutional rights that the ACLU and others would just sit back and ignore it. I just hope that the 9th Circuit's decision is the first sign that the the DCMA wall is coing to crumble as completely as the one in Berlin did 11 yrs ago.
Goodbye DCMA??? (Score:2)
So as a programmer, my feeling is now this -- the war is over, (which is where I would have personally drawn the ethics line anyway) use the DeCSS code to make players, but don't even bother to extend the code into making it copy the DVD's, even if it's relatively easy to do.
That keeps us off the hook in terms of the piracy claim, and really puts the onus back on the MPAA to focus on what is really piracy -- and go after those folks, which is what they should have done anyway, rather than attacking the code itself.
Good News? (Score:1)
My question is: where is the line drawn? What protection should companies (or individual software vendors) have with their intellectual property? Should every media format be forced to be public, or just allow it to be "figured out" by whomever wants to?
-davek
LSDVD developer [rit.edu]
Re:The way it should be. (Score:1)
Intellectual property infringement by direct copying or patent infringement is still actionable, but coming up with a different way of accomplishing the same thing by reverse engineering should be allowed -- it helps advance the state of the art, which is why (in the US at least) patents and copyrights exist anyway.
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
Ah, but decrypting DVD video files in order to play them is with the approval of the copyright owner.
The fine print on the back of DVD movie packages typically has license verbage like "Licensed for private home viewing only". Doesn't say "on authorized equipment" or anything like that, so a reverse-engineered CSS decryption system as part of a player is clearly legal.
The trick in this case is showing that DeCSS, especially the Windows version, is part of a playback system. (IMHO, sites which have the DeCSS code only without the other viewing code (nist, mpeg2dec, ac3dec, or etc.) may have a tougher time of proving that.)
Re:Victory or Loss? (Score:2)
You might be surprised to learn that a sizable fraction of the species homo sapiens thinks that judges should set principles above profits, as should legislators, lawyers, corporate executives, employees, consumers, etc.
Moreover, not all of us think corporations are endowed by their Creators with any Inalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Profit. Corporations are a creation of a legal system, and don't hold an Inalienable Entitlement to anything that that legal system doesn't grant them.
If you don't like the rules the legal system offers Sony, you need to get out among the DVD protesters and make your voice heard in the opposite direction. (Appealing to some higher principle that sets aside 'principals' doesn't cut it!)
--
Re:Stop Evil Java Banner Ads (Score:1)
You have to look at the bigger picture, here. (Score:2)
This seems to be a reason for emulation.
Issue #2- The Hardware: It is not known that Sony loses any money on the consoles (atleast it's doubtful they do anymore). While Sony would never say for sure, at the beginning, they probably took a hit on the console to get it out the door. Especially with all the problems/revisions they've had. Now, after such a long prouction, they are likely making a decent profit off every unit.
This seems to be a reason against emulation.
So we have a couple of puny reasons, some would to point for, and some against Sony wanting this emulation software. But what are we overlooking?
Issue #3- Control and The Future: This is the one everybody is missing. Look at the PSX2, people. This isn't just a gaming console, there are a lot of expansion possibilities on this baby. They don't want to make a PCI version to play its games with your PC. They want you to hook it up to your Sony TV through your Sony VCR and have all the Sony branded media stream right on through. The CVGS and Bleem! set a bad precedent for them losing control of a major part of this process. Big companies like control. It makes them feel good to have you buy all of the Sony add-on USB controllers and hook up your Sony digicam to the Firewire port. Noone knows exactly where Sony wants to take the PSX2. But they are holding the keys. (unintentional Matrix reference) And the PSX2 is going to be a very powerful machine which a wide variety of people (Newbies and Slashdotters alike) are likely to plunk a few hundred down on. We can poo-poo web access on a TV forever, but it they already own a PSX2, don't have a PC, and can pay $50 to hook it up to the web, what's going to stop people?
I'm not saying PSX2 or Sony is evil. But they want control of their vast dream. Emulators made by other people (or even a theoretical PSX emulator made by Sony for other hardware) takes that control away. Look for them to rigorously oppose the CVGS for as long as they can. Throwing around money at Sony to help further along their larger picture would be nothing new.
-doenermord
Don't blame the games, it takes a village to screw up a child.
Not the end of it (Score:1)
the reversal was granted on the basis that Sony should not have
been granted the preliminary injunction, not that Connectix's use of the
PlayStation BIOS isn't an infringement of Sony's intellectual property.
This stops the preliminary injunction, but not the case, as I understand it.
Re:IANAL either, but DMCA may change things (Score:1)
Re:I don't see why they *wouldn't* release ... (Score:1)
Which isn't exactly all that great in terms of PSX games...
Since the PSX2 is supposed to be fully compatible with the PSX game titles, it would be a poor marketing move to release a software-PSX right around the time of the PSX2 release
Well, from what I have heard lately in the console scene, the PSY in it's current state is only compatible with games that 'conform' to Sony's API. If a game bangs on the hardware, tough luck - the PSY won't play it. This would be the perfect application for a PSX-emu in my opinion, to make the PSY 100% compatible (and with Sony's intricate knowledge of the PSX, they can do it).
Bummer for Sony. Too bad they didn't think of doing the software-PSX thing a year ago, but then that's the breaks in the high tech world, and I guess they were already raking it in anyway with the game title profits...
IMHO, Sony is probably not pissed off at the fact that somebody wrote an emulator - they're pissed off because bleem!/VGS/PSEmuPro beat them to it. Also notice that the two commercial PSX emulators - bleem! and VGS - were taken to court by Sony, while the major freeware emulator - PSEmuPro - has hardly seen anything from Sony if at all. Not to mention that while bleem! and VGS only operate with authentic PSX CD's (and don't require a BIOS dump), PSEmuPro will play any CD-R backup you have (illegally obtained or not), and requires a BIOS dump (which you would think Sony would be furious about).
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
Big question (Score:1)
And every time one of these cases comes up, whether it be DeCSS, Connectix, or even the much-hated Microsoft, it seems that everyone on
Re:Big Answer to Big question (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
No, this case was decided by a panel of 3 judges.
Don
Re:that screws everything up (Score:1)
In this day and age, you gotta hire a retarded monkey to lose a law suit if you are mr. big corporation
Like MS? I think the point is that Lawyers get paid whether they win or lose. So it's far likely that Clueless Management Types decided to fight irrespective of legal opionion. In fact I'd go further - imagine I'm a lawyer, and my client says to me "Should we fight this case, which of course will involve us paying you lots of money?". Exactly which way am I motivated to respond?
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:2)
The DMCA allows reverse engineering of a playback device. It doesn't allow making something which decrypts non-programs without the approval of the copyright owner.
Thus, even if the Xing player had been encrypted properly, the DMCA wouldn't prohibit breaking the encryption of the player.
In this case, there playstation programs weren't scrambled, so there's no DMCA involved.
Other coverage elsewhere (Score:2)
CNN [cnn.com]
and in case the 9th circuit site gets slashdotted, there's findlaw [findlaw.com].
Naturally, Sony's pressreleases [playstation.com] are conspicuously absent.
Re:Disgusted (Score:1)
---
Re:CVGS and me (Score:1)
FFVIII? Good flipping luck, unless you've been playing with a walkthrough or have
It's about time dammit (Score:1)
-----
Linux user: if (nt == unstable) { switchTo.linux() }
Re:Yes! (Score:1)
I am aware of quite a bit of piracy on the PSX, and with emulators available now the people copying games don't even need to own a chipped PSX to play them, they can use a PC... and a pirated version of an emulator.
I have two opinions on this. I'm pleased that we (the people) are able to reverse engineer software still, and that others (companies) are not able to stop that reverse engineering. I'm not pleased that people continue to pirate software.
In the end, perhaps these are seperate issues, properly addressed seperately, but as piracy continues, the pressure to limit what can be pirated will continue.
I used to think that Sony was stupid for trying to stop emulators, but now I believe that I was being naive. There are a lot of people out there that are willing to pirate any software they get their hands on. I think Sony is smart to try to slow that down, even if the way they are going about it is wrong.
Re:Victory or Loss? (Score:1)
And another ready source for games to pirate is your local Blockbuster...
AND, the people we are talking about aren't buying a G3 or P3 just to play playstation games... don't be silly. They are using the systems they already have.
I still agree that this was a good legal victory, AND I believe keeping in line with the spirit of the law.
Interesting Bit (Score:1)
If Sony wishes to obtain a lawful monopoly on
the functional concepts in its software, it must satisfy the more stringent standards of the patent laws. See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 160-61 (1989); Sega, 977 F.2d at 1526. This Sony has not done. The second statutory factor strongly favors Connectix.
I had more, but knote seems to have eaten them.
back to studying for tomorrow's midterms (yes, that's plural, sucks to be me)
Cyano
Re:Reverse-Engineering (Score:2)
Patience will pay off with Bleem! though, one day I'm sure they'll have 100% compatibility on their test system, of course that will be less certain on consumer PCs due to configuration issues, hardware differences, etc, but it will probably be close to 100%.
I'm glad to hear this news, here I was thinking that Sony had the law on their side in the Virtual Game Station case, if not the morality. I'm glad they lost, nice when law and morality go hand in hand.
Now we need a native Linux Playstation Emulator, unless there is already one out there. I wonder who out their is up to the task... heh, some one should suggest it to MoRE, it'd be a good way to legally spit in Sony's eye.
Re:Diffrence between DeCSS and VGS (big) (Score:1)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Re:lawyer: a bit more (Score:1)
I thought the approach of the court was both innovative and of broad and sweeping application.
IMO, this case will be persuasive should a similar matter come before the Federal Court of Canada.
Two other matters are rasied by this appeal:
1 - I assume there was an undertaking as to damages by Sony in this case should they ulitmately fail to secure a permanent injunction. Such undertaking would apply to its own interim injunction being overturned. It follows that Connectix will be firing out excessive expectation loss estimates re: its lost sales and submitting the bill for Sony to pay. In other words, Sony is likely to have to cut a substantial cheque to the Defendant in this case.
2- We can also expect that Connectix will be relying on this case for its inevitable PSX2 emulator. Look for work on that to have begun 0 oh - today
3 - Lastly, that plague of a thing called the DMCA was not relied on before the court in this case. While it may be of significatn use, I hasten to point out that the DMCA is a virus which has not spread out of the USA - and is not likely to for some time. Upshot - a PSX/2 emulator will doubtless be available in Canada and Europe, even if it is not made for the USA.
Regards.
.Robert
Victory or Loss? (Score:1)
Re:Cluestick Time... (Score:1)
The swap trick isn't that unknown. Insert an original Playstation CD, get to the first logo screen, force open the drive suddenly (with the switch taped down or blocked so that the disk stays spinning) and insert the copied disk. If anyone is stupid enough to try it, they deserve the damage.
Why Did Sony Sue in the First Place? (Score:2)
I've always been puzzled why Sony sued in the first place. All the software did was broaden the audience for Sony's games - you weren't bound to purchasing $100 just for the capability - if you'd already bought a computer, you were fine. Sony doesn't make money on the consoles. They make it on licensing the games.
Perhaps they were concerned that someone offering the software could add extensions to games, much as Microsoft added its own extensions to HTML, Java, whatever. The old "embrace and extend" model of assimilation. This, however, seems like much less of a concern when there are millions and millions of players on the market before the software was released. Of course, Netscape had millions of browsers out when Microsoft started too.
Of course, we know how they did that....
Re:Did i forget anything? (Score:1)
from encyc Britanica:
hominy kernels of corn, either whole or ground, from which the hull and germ have been removed by a process usually involving a caustic agent. Hominy was traditionally prepared by boiling the corn in a dilute lye solution made from wood-ash leachings until the hulls could be easily removed by hand and flushed away with running water. In the modern commercial technique, the corn is boiled in dilute sodium hydroxide, and the hulls are removed by the combined action of rotating cylinders and running water.
Wood-ash lye is still often employed in this process to impart calcium to the kernels. Hominy can be made in the home by soaking dried, shelled corn in a baking-soda solution and then removing the hulls.
Hominy is perhaps most familiar in the form of coarsely ground grits, boiled and served with butter, gravy, or syrup for breakfast or shaped into cakes and fried. Grits from white corn are processed into cornflake cereals. Hominy is also sometimes used in brewing and in the manufacture of wallpaper paste.
proof (Score:2)
Bleem gross income as of Dec 31st 1999: Around $4 million
Amount Sony spent sueing Bleem: approximately $10 Million
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Re:Backwards (Score:1)
Excerpt from ruling, relevance to recent lawsuits? (Score:1)
"Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly. See id. at 1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
Re:The way it should be. (Score:2)
If you read the legal documents submitted to the court in the DVDCCA case in California, you will see that the DVDCCA lawyers cited the original Sony v. Connectix injunction to support their case. Talk about having the chair pulled out from under you!
I assume the EFF is, at this very moment, submiting the appropriate paperwork to inform the court of this development.
Re:The way it should be. (Score:2)
---
The main difference between this and DeCSS: (Score:1)
Why is Sony so upset? (Score:1)
Why not just leave the old hardware alone, or better yet, release the schematics for it, have a whole bunch of PSX hardware/software clones. They'd still make a killing on the games.
The way it should be. (Score:3)
This software, afterall, does NOT promote pirating Playstation Software. Rather, it allows people to play Playstation games they have purchased legally without having to purchase the Playstation Console.
An excellent decision by the judge, in my opinion.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
Now that they have won this battle... (Score:1)
Re:From the text of the ruling itself: (Score:1)
There are a couple of issues that need to be pointed out however before we can see this a true victory. This case was decided in the 9th circut, which has jurisdiction over most of the west coast. In the DeCSS case in california, the studios sued under a trade secret theory, not a copyright one. The Connectix case, and the analysis presented in the quote above, are related to copyright and fair use. The judges basically ruled that intermediate copying for the purpose of reverse engineering was a fair use and that Sony cannot use copyright to prevent Connectix from creating a competeing product so long as Connectix did not use any of SOny's code. Like I said earlier though, the california DeCSS case involves trade secrets, which is a completely different set of rules and analysis. The court in that case could very well say, "it doesn't apply cause they are suing under a different law"
The New York case is a little different. There, the studios did claim copyright infringement and the DMCA and the judge based a lot of his analysis upon copyright law. So this might be a better case to be used in that court. The only problem is that New York is in the 2nd Circuit and doesn't have to follow the Connectix case's logic or reasoning. He could just say, "hey that's nice, but I do not care what the 9th circuit says."
If I were the defendnat's attorneys however, I would be hammering away with this case and see where it lead me. It will be interesting to see what happens
Rob Jones
Re:Victory or Loss? (Score:1)
Furthermore, the spirit of the law wasenforced. The spirit says that the government is supposed to help consumers, and that intellectual property laws are for the betterment of society, not just the enrichment of individuals. And this made it easier for a company engaged in lawful business -- Connectix, that is -- to earn its justified profits.
And, it confirms that reverse engineering is legal, which is a big victory for our side.
Or are you just trolling? If so, ya hooked me, fair and square.
Re:Interesting Bit, and here's some more (Score:1)
"Sega expressly sanctioned disassembly." (That's the case Sega v. Accolade, not Sega the company.)
"Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449-50 (1984) (copying of entire work does not preclude fair use)". (*Smile*) -- Sony's own previous case used against it...(That is the Betamax case, isn't it?)
"This innovation affords opportunities for game play in new environments, specifically anywhere a Sony PlayStation console and television are not available, but a computer with a CD-ROM drive is."
Replace game play with movie viewing,"Sony PlayStation console" with "DVD Player," and CD-ROM with DVD-ROM, and DVD-CCA goes down...
Also, note that Connectix asked for help, but Sony refused. (Similarly, a request to make a Linux DVD player was made, but refused by DVD-CCA.) Possible implication: If the licensor doesn't help you, and intellectual property laws don't prevent you, then a lot of leeway in reverse engineering is allowed.
I like it. We needed some good news...
Bleem vs CVGS updates (Score:1)
However, I read elsewhere (MacNN [macnn.com] maybe?) that they were planning to announce a release date for a version 1.3 update within a month; this update would address compatibility for games released during the legal process.
Likely their support will be similar for the Windows version.
that screws everything up (Score:1)
I mean...sheesh...these last 2 weeks have been "downers" for everything...
But..now that i think about it...
Sony must feel pretty stupid. In this day and age, you gotta hire a retarded monkey to lose a law suit if you are mr. big corporation.
Hell...even O.J. got aquitted.
Maybe if Natalie Portman sued Slashdot for its reader's slanderous comments...then it would really round out this legislative/corporate/media circus. Maybe some UK
Backwards (Score:1)
I actually think Sony should have won this case. Look at it...Sony makes most of its money off of the systems. The stores don't make crap off selling the systems, thats why everystore sells them for the same price. Thats because they are making little to no profit of the systems.
But if you buy a system at store 'x', you will probably buy another controller, a memory card, and a game or two. But the stores make profit off of those.
The DeCSS was different. He wanted to play DVD movies on his linux machine, but couldnt because they only had players for windoze and crapintosh. But...the PSX games are made for the PSX console.
Sure, i can agree its grey area to its legality, but i don't see it near the scope of anything like MP3 or DeCSS.
Especially when DeCSS is free...no profit involved. But Connectix is making money off its reverse engineer of the Sony Bios. I wouldnt say that it is fair. Maybe if Sony made their own PC PSX software emulator it would be different and easier to judge.
I don't really see a tyranny here. Maybe if some nobody would have done it and released it GPL, it would be easier to defend. But, if that would have happened, Sony would have probably won the case.
I definently have to evaluate this situation a little bit more and get more
Re:Backwards (Score:1)
The point i was making, is that Sony controls the PSX. They control which companies make games for it, what games are made, as well as the console itself. BUT...buy buying a PSX, you must accept those facts. As in...You are buying a game that was developed via a charge from Sony, on a disc that Sony made money from, as well as on a console that Sony made money from.
Once again to compare it to CSS...If sony made an emulator or even a emulation HW device, I could see a point to Connectix if they didn't offer it for your HW or OS.
I am not sympathetic towards Sony in any way though. I am just stating that I don't agree that Connectix should have won the case. They reversed engineered the Bios, which i will state that it should fall under the fair use policy. But...using it to recreate it and sell it isn't what i call fair use.
Think about it...you create something, and someone takes a major part of it and modifies it to run on something else and then sells it?
No, this isn't Darwin's Thoery...It's niekze's theory. Sure...we took the whole survival of the fittest idea as well as the whole random breeding part and currently selling it under our name...
So here is my whole argument in one chunk
If they would have figured out the Bios info themselves, without reverse engineeering it, OR released it without any intent to make profit...I wouldn't have a problem with the decision. Did Linus reverse engineer the Unix kernel? Did Linus sell a modified reversed engineered Unix kernel? And thats why i don't have a problem with Linus.
Re:that screws everything up (Score:1)
<sarcasm>
Well, thank you, that just made my day that little bit more cheerful. Any other stories of despair and abuse so we can bask in the sunny glow of human kindness?
</sarcasm>
Re:You have to look at the bigger picture, here. (Score:1)
You could always play them on your Sony VAIO computer...
Hope deCSS turns out the same way (Score:1)
Any way it is good news for the emulator scene. And good news for computer users. It means that maybe we won't have to invest in the latest console to get to play the newest console games if more companies will create products like this.
I've tried several emulators and most are decent quality have any of you tried connectix. How does it compare to other emulators?
I just wish that all console makers would go to cd's so that you could have emulators for any console without the need for roms. At least with cds people are buying the games instead of just downloading the rom files.
Most console game manufacturers don't make money off of the hardware anyway they make money off of the software liscences.
Kind of disjointed and unfocused I know but I need sleep. Later and good night.
Re:The way it should be. (Score:1)
Placing clauses in a license agreement does not override law. Most licenses also include a clause which states "where law permits". In many countries, a license is invalidated if you cannot prove the person read and understood it prior to use.
The Mac retails somewhere between 10 a 50 times the cost of a real Playstation. The price of a Playstation would be pocket change. I wouldn't be supprised if the vast majority of the "Virtual Playstation" owners also owned a real one.
The Playstation hardware was never meant to make money for Sony. It is the licensing fees and the disk printing fees that they charge the ISV's along with their own software sales which make them a profit. At some times, the Playstation was priced so low, they actually lost money manufacturing it.
BTW, when was the last time you signed into a legally binding license to use a piece of hardware?
Re:The way it should be. (Score:1)
Yes! (Score:3)
Make the connection (Score:1)
The same Sony is suing over DeCSS.
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:1)
Maybe Connectix can be stopped implementing compatibility with FFVIII, as that's got a lot more FMV than game? :-)
- Andy R
I don't like reverse engineering (Score:1)
Just asking to get flamed, here, but... (Score:1)
Reverse-Engineering (Score:1)
Here's the key section from the opinion: (Score:2)
Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1523-24 ("[A]n attempt to monopolize the market by making it impossible for others to compete runs counter to the statutory purpose of promoting creative expression and cannot constitute a strong equitable basis for resisting the invocation of the fair use doctrine.").
The court has squarely rejected the concept that copyright law can be used to enforce a monopoly on devices which play content. This is a good ruling, and it's consistent with precedent. Sega tried something like this a few years back, and the courts wouldn't buy that either. Unless another circuit decides otherwise, it's effectively the law in the US.
Regarding the DeCSS issue, it would be a step forward if someone created a straightforward Linux player for video DVDs and distributed it. That would create a situation very similar to this one, which might be an easier case to win than the DeCSS case.
Re:Reverse engineering can be a curse (Score:1)
Re:Just asking to get flamed, here, but... (Score:1)
There is some information on the bleem! site about this.
By putting out faster drives, they would have unlocked their copy-protection scheme.
My opinion. Abuse it as you wish.
Sakhmet.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Linux is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds (Score:1)
Lawyers and bad cases (Score:1)
Re:Yes! (Score:1)
Page 1721: "Sony understandably seeks control over the market for devices that play games Sony produces or licenses. The copyright law, however, does not confer such a monopoly."
Replace Sony with MPAA and games with movies, and you can see how this might be applicable.
What I found more interesting was the judge's position towards use of the BIOS. He said that observing the BIOS in action in order to reverse-engineer a compatible product in the name of competition was a fair (and protected) use of the original product, and so any product they developed is OK, and that any 'intermediate' copies of the BIOS they might have made were irrelevant, so long as no code from the original Sony BIOS ended up in the finished product.
Does that mean player keys extracted from a player while it's working or using captured decoded video from a player could also be considered fair use of the player? I think once the courts realize that the real issue here is control of the players, then it'll practically be over. They'll axe the suits and OK competitive players, because it will be seen as a pro-commerce decision. It increases the number of players in the market, which will increase the sale of movies in the market, instead of supplying the DVDCCA and MPAA with an illegal monopoly that is NOT allowable under copyright law.
The fact that the Copyright Office is reviewing the law and its possible impact is also encouraging. Go to Cryptome [cryptome.org] for links on how to submit comments to the Copyright Office on the impact of the DMCA, if you've got a grasp on the issue and something to say. ----