Sony Crushes UK PS2 Mod Chip Developers 506
SukebePanda! writes "UK mod chip developer Channel
Techonology finally had their day in court with Sony, and lost big time. This judgement could have far reaching implications, with the judge implying that even playing original imports was illegal. This
also wipes out any chances of seeing home brewed software on the Playstation 2 anytime soon, as well. "
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free trade. (Score:5, Informative)
If you can partitian a market, to the level of world regions, countries, states, cities, or even individuals, then you can always charge more.
These artificial price distinctions allow 'value based pricing', where the price paid for a good is the same as its percieved value. As there is (at least some) free trade, producers of goods cannot do that. They must sell at a uniform price, for otherwise, people will just ship the goods from where they are cheap to where they are artificially expensive. This makes economic sense, because it insures that goods will be sold closer to their marginal costs of production.
Thats the real reason for region coding, to artificially partitian the world market so-as to sell goods for inflated prices.
Its also the reason that manufactures don't liked used goods. Because used goods also threaten those artificially inflated prices. Because 'the new economy is different', they've managed to shut down used software.
Every mod chip that allows goods to cross these partitians is an attack on their artificially inflated prices. And thus they at least wish for that to be illegal.
17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:5, Informative)
The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony. Basically, this 'controversial' statement made it illegal to play games purchased from abroad.
Nice try, but unlike United Kingdom copyright law, United States copyright law would consider this a fair use of the copyrighted work. According to 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu]:
This paragraph was passed specifically to reject copyright owners' "Copying the program into RAM is infringing; therefore, EULAs are binding" argument.
Re:17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:2)
[...]
> This paragraph was passed specifically to reject copyright owners' "Copying the program into RAM is infringing; therefore, EULAs are binding" argument.
It's a bit of a bummer for those of us in the UK though. Any chance you could get the US government to get ours to agree to that too while trying to foist the DCMA on us?
http://uk.eurorights.org/
Re:17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:2)
Of course, I can think of no reasons why individual copies of software would generally be licensed for use anyway, so what do I know?
Re:17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:3, Interesting)
Where the real scam bit comes in is if the media gets damaged or if the same IP becomes available on a different media.
If it was simply the case that you had a licence to the IP then, replacements of damaged media would be at cost as would changing media.
Re:17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:2)
Not really...in fact, it was specifically worded ("owner of a particular copy") so as to not apply if a EULA was in force. The original versions did not have that "owner" language, and it was added before passage because Congress recognized that some companies want to license rather than sell software, and did not want 17 USC 117 to override license terms.
Re:Copyright infringement != breach of contract (Score:3, Informative)
"MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer" held the defendent liable for copyright infringement, not for contract breach.
Copyright infringement is MUCH more serious BTW, statuatory damages and criminal charges are even possible.
Here is a web page explaing why 17 USC 117 is essentially useless [arentfox.com]
17 USC 117 does NOT keep this from happening in US (Score:3, Informative)
See this web page explaining why 17 USC 117 does not protect you in all jurisdictions [arentfox.com].
Be careful, copyright infringement can (and has) resulted in huge damages being awarded. 60K pounds total or approx $96K US in the case mentioned in this article.
The above web page mentions "MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer", which was an incredibly bad decision which basically says 17 USC 117 only applies if the copyright owner allows it to apply (by selling rather than licensing the software). In other words, it is useless for keeping the courts from stealing your money and giving it to the plaintiff.
Also, the fact the defendent in the Sony vs Channel Technology case lost on summary judgement is scary. What about the RIGHT TO A TRIAL? Here in the USA, we have it in the Constitution - the 7th Amendment for civil cases - but that part of the Constitution has been de facto suspended for a long time (anyone know how old "summary judgement for plaintiff" is in the US?)
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, modding my PS2 to play CD-R games is a bit of a different matter. Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony still gets their money from the original software sale
Sony of Japan Inc does. Sony of America Inc doesn't.
Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
Stripping away the movies helps shrink most games down to under 700 MB.
Sony vs. Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
A) Not availible at all in America
B) It won't be availible in America for ages, but you're willing to pay for the privilidge of playing it early.
C) You happened to *be* in Japan when buying it (I got a bunch of DVDs I can't play on any Region 1 DVD player if I decide to go a year to America.
D) The local version is a cripple (As was/is often the case with DVDs, with bad format (two sides), no extras etc.)
E) Artifical pricing - actually very rare case to make up for shipping and customs, trouble with returns/replacements and so on.
A) - No loss whatsoever
B) - They could sell it to you for a premium, they just don't.
C) - Pisses off those it concerns, for no return, I still won't buy them twice.
D) - Pure incompetence, we need competitive protection from our other divisions.
E) - Wow they might actually lose some money.
Kjella
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:5, Insightful)
So? It's NOT the business of the government or of me to guarantee any particular business a profit, or indeed that it stay in business. The producer of the original game gets the money from the sale of their product.
Just because Sony of America would rather you give your money to them rather than to Sony of Japan rates a big "Waah-fucking-Waaah!" in my book.
I am so sick of these dipshit corporations and anti-competitive trusts like the RIAA and MPAA who have so *little* confidence in their own products that they twist the legal system to try and force consumers to pay them "entertainment taxes". What they are doing is screaming at the top of their lungs via their actions that "OUR PRODUCTS REALLY SUCK AND WE KNOW YOU WOULDN'T BUY THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BAD!"
Why else are they so afraid of honest competition?
Your argument is with the government, not Sony. (Score:4, Insightful)
But it IS the business of government to see that, when a person or organization has played by the government's rules and has something of value, they do not lose that value to someone who has NOT played by the government's rules.
You may have an argument with the rules - whether they're proper, or whether they're consistent with the rest of the rules - especially those that override lower-level rules. But that argument is not with Sony, but with the government: With the legislature (for constructing the obnoxious rule), or with the courts (for not resolving the inconsistency with other rules of the same or higher precedence).
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:4, Insightful)
> Sony of Japan Inc does. Sony of America Inc doesn't.
If Sony of America Inc can't compete in terms of price and
availability with Sony of Japan Inc, then they SHOULDN'T be
getting any money. The market segmentation that digital content
providers have put into place through region codes is quite
illegal, at least in the U.S. It's just done in a way that
confuses most judges to the point that it can be dismissed with
a waving of hands by a lawyer in an expensive suit.
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how it works with just about every other type of product - if one company (or branch thereof) won't sell you what you want, you go to one who will.
With all this new crap - Region Coding, etc... we're being denied our right to choose who to buy from. They basically say "Well, we have this game, but we won't sell it to you - and we won't let you play it, even if you can get a copy of it from someone else".
I don't agree with the piracy-enabling chips - although I'm not exactly sure how to balance that with the fact that making backups should be possible, especially for those with kids who tend to destroy the (rather costly) game discs. I do, however, think that it should be perfectly legal to use an import-enabling chip to play non-US release games.
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:2)
I maintain that if the copyright holder is unwilling to make a copy of his information to me at a FAIR price, then he is violating the spirit of copyright laws in the US (ie "to promote useful arts and sciences") and is violating my freedoms of speech and press (copyright and patents ARE infringements upon absolute freedom of speech and press but are permitted). Therefore, I feel morally correct in doing whatever I want with the information - read, write, execute, etc.
If I can legally buy the information it at a fair price, though, then I'm morally obligated to either buy the information or not possess the information.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Because under Section 17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988 you specifically have no intrinsic right to make a transient copy even if that transient copy is necessary for the use of the product - that is, reading the contents of a CD into memory is unauthorised copying. It is assumed that you are implicitly granted permission from the copyright holder when you purchase the product, but as of yesterday's ruling this is assumed to only apply to the country where you bought it. As a result, you are legally permitted to import a game for personal use, but copying that game into your system's memory in order to play it is illegal unless the copyright holder specifically grants you permission to do so. [hmso.gov.uk]
This quite possibly applies to imported DVDs, too.
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
"Globalization", my arse. "We want a global economy, but we don't really want you to participate in it. No, what we mean by 'Global' is that we (the companies of the world) will be free to sell our crap world-wide and determine who gets it, for how much, and just when/how they can use it."
Hey, that's a good idea! If caught with a modchip, simply claim "I was just trying to be a good Global Citizen and do my part to support Japan's economy, as well as our own!"
I just hope no judges here in the States get any cute ideas from this ruling.
Re:Jesus, why don't you guys actually read the art (Score:3, Informative)
Missing the point here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Should someone create a chip that checked the copyright bit of the CD and the checksum and if these were true THEN still did not allow the CD to play but allowed home-grown CD's to play, I bet that chip would at least have a chance in standing up in court.
The documentation I was able to find on how to make home grown PlayStation games was very rare and horribly sketchy (sketchy = ModChip sites didn't have it in their FAQ or HOWTO). I was able to get the Psnes emulator with some NES ROMS burned onto a CD and playable in my Playstation, so it *is* possible to make homegrown games.
As for the backup issue, most companies that produce playstation games claim that if you send them your scratched, shattered, melted or otherwise expired CD, they will send you a replacement copy. I think we can all agree this is BS, and as games age, and as companies that produce them fold, merge, and otherwise, it is impossible to be assured that you will get a replacement. Only way to fight this is to file a class action suit that claims infringement of personal rights because they do take away your backup rights, claim to provide replacements and do not do so in a timely or reasonable manner.
In all, create a ModChip that allows home grown Playstation games to work but not copyrighted ones, then have your friend (or wait two weeks), create an application that changes the copyright bit and checksum on the CD to *fool* your ModChip into thinking it is not copyrighted. Then you can sell them in every drug store around the country risk free.
Re:Missing the point here... (Score:3, Informative)
1) There was a block with an impossible checksum on the disc. No CD burner (except for the pros') would write such a checksum.
2) There was also a region code placed in there.
When the PSX booted up, it grabbed the checksum and region code to make sure that it was a real disc and playing on the proper hardware for the region. All the ModChips do is constantly feed the hardware that checks these codes with good values (the newer 'stealth' chips stop a few seconds after boot).
So, there *are* chips that *only* send the valid region code and *not* the funky checksum. That will let you play any original PSX disc from any country. It doesn't help with "backups" - legal or otherwise.
Needless to say, these chips don't sell very well. They're often sold by legit importers or people with a strong moral adversity to piracy, but not to imports.
As for the homegrown games, that would require some further logic in the chip.
Re:Missing the point here... (Score:2)
Re:Jesus, why don't you guys actually read the art (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Jesus, why don't you guys actually read the art (Score:2)
Re:Jesus, why don't you guys actually read the art (Score:2)
DVDs and the ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing I'm wondering about it copying data to memory can be considered "illegal copying". If this is the case for imported games, I do not see how this would make it "not illegal" (for lack of a better phrase) to load PS2 games of your home region (as it is still copying). As "copying" is an integral function of all consoles, I'm wondering what unexpected side-effects there will be. I think the whole thing is a minefield, and the sooner we get a knowledgable expert posting here the better. The whole thing about licensing only for a certain region bothers me - I really can't see why we're not allowed to play import games (or DVDs). OK, its their technology, but still there is "fair use". Hopefully the EU can check into this as well when it's doing its investigation of the legality of DVD regions.
Re:DVDs and the ruling (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DVDs and the ruling (Score:2)
Isn't it absurd that legality could depend on an internal technical detail of the device? We're not talking about persistent copies here.
UK courts foul up again (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing suits have been trying for years to stifle shopping internationally, in case people begin to realise that their countries are being screwed in comparison to others. This case affects games importing (because we aren't allowed to buy what we want say the suits) but DVDs as well (because it would absolutely *crush* the movie sector, say the suits) and anything else the marketing guys want to stifle. It's not like dealing contraband, it's off-the-shelf products.
My worry is that this trend will continue, even though it, in some cases, directly contravenes law. Here in the UK, our car prices are drastically higher than on the continent, and certain car manufacturers make it very difficult to buy your car abroad. This is despite the face the EU trade laws explicitely say otherwise. If companies are flauting the *law*, how exactly can we stop them?
Re:UK courts foul up again (Score:2)
I'm usually quite cynical, but sometimes UK judges do this in order to prove a point; they'll follow the law to the letter in order to say (in veiled terms) "hey, did you realise that this law, as it's presently worded, makes *this* possible. I suspect this isn't what you intended, so you might want to think about reviewing the law". Case in point, the recent attempt by a pro-life group that went to court to try and get cloning outlawed and ended up with exactly the opposite legal conclusion!
--
Re:UK courts foul up again (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Justice Jacobs.
I was present in the courtroom (I'm the Martin
mentioned on Channel's website), and the judge
was extremely skeptical of Sony's claims,
as he knew that the technology could be used
to prevent fair uses and the development of
PS2 games by people who couldn't licence Sony's
system.
The judge had a perfect grasp of the implications
of the rulings, and made sure that Sony couldn't
stifle people from talking about the case or
about the chip, and prevented Sony from getting
the bank details of the people who had ordered
the chip.
Do you expect the judge not to apply
the law?
What I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, if I buy a license for a piece of software, I retain the rights use that software for an unlimited amount of time.
Re:What I don't understand (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What I don't understand (Score:2)
Re:What I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
Just recently, my 5yo snapped a PS2 disc trying to take it out of the case. OK, it was his fault, he was a little too eager, and I ate the $50 loss. But that's exactly why we should be allowed to create and use backups.
You can show a kid 500 times how to take it out of the case, and how to pop it in to the machine. But they're kids. Hand/eye coordination isn't fully developed. They're more enthusiastic than they are precise. Discs WILL get scratched. A parent cannot take the disc out and put it in every time, because it limits the growth of the child not to do things on their own.
No, it doesn't bother me that the disc got broken, as a parent you expect things to get broken. I felt bad for my son because he knows he did something wrong. What I was annoyed about was that I did not have a method of backing up PS2 games like I did with PS1 and PC games.
And no, my son doesn't sit around and play games all weekend nor does he watch much TV. Like me he spends most of his time outdoors. Which is why he broke the disc, he just hasn't gotten the hang of taking them out of the case yet.
Re:What I don't understand (Score:2)
Re:What I don't understand (Score:3, Informative)
Fortunately it was just a CD-R I'd used to ferry a couple of large downloads home from work (back before I had adsl), but it could've been much more expensive. I agree with the original poster - companies can't have it all their own way. If all we buy is a licence to use the contents of the disk (be it software, music, etc), then either replacements for damaged media should be free, or we should be able to make functional backup copies. Copy prevention on games, though, is becoming more and more common, at least judging from my modest collection.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:What I don't understand (Score:2)
After all, if I buy a license for a piece of software, I retain the rights use that software for an unlimited amount of time.
Quite. And you should have been able to upgrade your vinyl records to CD for just the cost of the media, but you couldn't. The law is being particularly an ass here.
Just one opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just one opinion (Score:2, Informative)
The govt. does seem to be bowing to pressure from the US govt. and the entertainment industry in that it may prevent newly released titles in being parallel imported for 6 months, and all parallel imports would be assumed to be illegal (i.e. conterfeit), unless the IMPORTER can prove otherwise (dumb idea).
"copy of copyright material in memory" (Score:2, Interesting)
"...a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized..."
While I understand the intention behind this statement, isn't it flawed? This statement is given to explain why software licensed in one area is illegal when run in another.
IANAL, but as I see it the truth is this: The license agreement is a (supposedly) legally-binding contract that defines the conditions by which you use the material you've bought. If the license says you can only use it between noon and 3pm then that's what you should, in theory, do. So if a license says "This software is licensed for use in the UK only" then that's the only place the software is legal. Whether we like it or not, that's the law.
The judge's statement tries to find some alternative justification for what should just be a black-and-white case - the law says it's illegal to cross-region, end of story. What Jacob says implies that a non-permanent, volatile copy of data used solely during the active "life" of a media's playback is subject to copyright.
So - as an example - the "copy" of a CD's audio content as it passes from the disc to the speakers by means of decoding and amplification circuitry. Is that a copy of the music? It's as permanent as the data stored in RAM during the execution of software and is no more useful. You can't duplicate the game from the content of the PS's RAM; you'd be lucky to reconstruct all the data & program files from what passes through memory during an execution.
The law says it's wrong. Whether it's to our liking or not, it's black-and-white, as defined in the license. So why try to justify the decision in this way?
There are further-reaching consequences of this ruling, including those applying to other electronic media, that should be considered. The ruling may be right, but the wording is still important.
Re:"copy of copyright material in memory" (Score:2)
Re:You do "sign" whether you realise it or not. (Score:2)
Console games don't come with a EULA. The publisher is protected by copyright and any patents that it has and that's it. It has no right to try and tell me where I can or cannot play my games.
Japanese games and backups (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Japanese games and backups (Score:2)
The one thing that could make the Playstation really hold its own against the Xbox, would be for Sony to really open up the hardware.
By behaving like this, there is very little incentive for people to keep buying Playstations, as opposed to X-boxen, given that they cost about the same amount, and the Xbox has a built in harddrive.
I can't really understand it, are Sony deliberately trying to get out of the console market ?
If so, they why would they care about mod chips ? If not then they should be trying to compete with the locked-down-tight Xbox...what the hell are they thinking ?
In Europe? (Score:3, Interesting)
I could imagine that an american court ruled like this.
Why? Well here in Europe the majority of software/hardware producers go by the good spirit of "If you buy it's yours, if you modify/brake it it's your problem"
What is a PS/2 good for if can't modify it to my needs?
If enough people think like this Sony just cut it's own flesh...
Re:In Europe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart Judge (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like a T-ball setup for a great public outcry and movement to get the politicians off their buts and give back some rights to end users. Or maybe just a great appeal case to go up the judiciary path. The quicker this judge makes his ruling the quicker it gets up the appeal path.
What if you move? (Score:2)
I plan on moving a few times in the next few years (not just different cities, different continents) and I was thinking about this whole DVD/game console mess. Without mod chips it's impractical to invest in these devices.
What's the official line on this? Am I supposed to buy a new console for each continent?
Re:What if you move? (Score:2)
That's what I would do, but any DVDs or games I buy abroad won't work in a player I purchase here.
fair use (Score:2, Interesting)
"yes, you have the right to make backups of Playstation games, but no, you do not have the right to play them since Sony has technology to prevent you from doing so."
seems like there really isn't any fair use anymore.
i'm wondering if i could purchase a Playstation CD and return it to the company that made it for a replacement in the event that it got scratched/damaged. has anyone done this? i mean, they say they don't want to let us make copies, but i should only have to pay for the game once. i'd be more than happy to pay for the replacement media and shipping. i'm just betting that they'd charge me $45 for a $50 game. now, what does that tell about how much the actual game is worth?
this isn't about (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, illegal copyiers force companies like SONY to take these steps to protect the profits of their company and the artisits that produce games. I am unahppy that this action was necassary, but untill the piracy stops SONY and others will take steps like this to keep it to a minimum.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:this isn't about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this isn't about (Score:2)
Re:this isn't about (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) Having the ability to pirate and being a pirate are two very differen things.
2.) We may have two very different definitions of "piracy."
I have a mod chip on my original PSX. If I wanted to, I could play ISO images off of CD-Rs. But I don't. I got the chip solely for the purpose of playing import games. Now, whether you think that playing an import game on a domestic system is piracy, then yes I'm a pirate by your definition. But I had better not be one by the law's definition.
"Unfortunately, illegal copyiers force companies like SONY to take these steps to protect the profits of their company and the artisits that produce games. I am unahppy that this action was necassary, but untill the piracy stops SONY and others will take steps like this to keep it to a minimum."
The ends do not justify the means. If they want to try to stop illegal copying, fine. But they have no right to impose on my right to use what I have legally purchased while trying to do it.
The Funny Thing is .... (Score:2, Insightful)
This wont effect Homebrew software since they are still going to make the Linux Kit available. Even though it is going to cost an arm and a leg.
So really the only people this effects are the people profiting from the sale of the modchips.
I don't get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't get this... (Score:2)
Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories
Heh. Sony can license games for sale in any region they want to, but they have no right to dictate use by region (at least in the US - sorry, UK). The usual reasoning is that since the games are sold as objects with no contract or recurring charge, exactly like music CDs, then they are covered by copyright law. That means that i can buy a Japanese game from Tokyo and play it in DC and there's fuck all Sony can do about it.
Which is absurd, because (Score:2)
Such licence-restrictions are so absurd they should be declard illegal or void.
Re:I don't get this... (Score:2)
what about PS1? (Score:5, Insightful)
PS1 has the largest installed userbase of any console in the world, besides game boy.
Mod chips for the PS1 cost almost nothing, are widely available, and are installed in many units.
The Yaroze was released in the US by Sony- essentially a PS1SDK.
There are countless emulators for the PS1, allowing you to play burned and/or copied software on your computer
Despite all this, I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew PS1 game, ever. Has anyone else?
Re:what about PS1? (Score:3, Informative)
Then again, what do you mean by homebrew PS1 games? I'd be willing to bet that because of the "copy protection" on games, mass producing a game is gonna be expensive, i.e. you can't just burn a few copies for your friends (who burn a few copies for their friends
In my mind, Yaroze was more to get people programing on the PS1 platform, cause then when those programers get jobs in the industry, what are they going to want to program for? Yes, the PS1. I'd imagine Sony has the same plan with the linux kit for the PS2.
The stock GBA allows this (Score:3, Informative)
The net yaroze was in fact a VERY scaled down development system, if you can even call it that. It would use a serial cable to connect to the pc and had a special program to run. The most you could do was upload small programs the size of the playstations memory (2MB IIRC).
So in effect, what you got with the Yaroze was the same thing that you get now with the stock Game Boy Advance plus a PC to GBA link cable. The GBA uses a serial cable (attached to the PC's parallel port) to connect to the pc and has a special program to run (mb.exe). The most you can do is upload small programs the size of the GBA's memory (256 KB). It's designed for netbooting off cartridges, but it makes a nice devkit for those starting out in GBA development [gbadev.org].
It did not allow access to the cd drive at all either.
Unlike Yaroze, the netboot method lets you access the cartridge, the serial port, everything. To keep the system from booting off the cart, hold Select+Start while booting and then send your boot image.
This is so much BS (Score:2, Interesting)
I am sick and tired of all these butt pirate corporate executives and the judges they bend over the podium taking away my fair use rights to the software that I personally own. I'm not like the judges in these cases, I don't like taking it up the ass for the media companies.
I don't own a license to any of the software I have. I never agreed to any license. If I have agreed to a license, then show me the signed contract. Click through doesn't count. I left my computer unattended, the cat must have accidently pressed the mouse button. If you have a witness that proves it was me that installed software on my computer, then produce that witness.
I actually own that copy of the software, outright. Just like I own a book or a magazine. If I want to buy japanese DVD's and play them in my American DVD player, I should be allowed to do so. If I want to rip my CD's into ogg's and play on my computer, then that is my business. If I want to rip the content of a DVD that I own and turn it into a DIVX CDR so that I can watch it on my laptop, again, that's my business.
If I want to read the dialog off the DVD and play it audibly as juicy ass farts, again, that is nobodies concern but my own. And believe me, if I started doing that, I would definately be concerned.
The media outlets want to limit our rights and divide us into smaller and smaller markets, which they maintain a full monopoly on. They want to make it so we can't see anything without paying them royalties on it. And they want a royalty everytime we do so.
They are just losing any goodwill they had with the consumers. They tend to forget just how valuable goodwill is. It can make or break the richest of companies. Beware and bewarned media conglomerates, it is almost time for us to pay you back for all those abuses you have been heaping on us lately. And payback is a bitch. It'll start with judges that don't stay bought and go downhill from there.
Re:This is so much BS (Score:2)
"If I make an illegal copy of someone else's media and use it myself, then and only then I should be punished."
Too many big companies are getting away with punishing people before any crime is committed. What amazes me is that people keep buying from those companies in the first place. If I ever get a PS2 (more than likely, because the only game on XBox I care about is SH2, while PS2 has that and others I'd like to play) it will be from a used game store so as not to put any more money into Sony's coffers. And trust me, it *will* get chipped.
-Legion
RAM (Score:3, Insightful)
The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony.
So its ok to have the imported game, but the act of loading the game into the PS2's RAM is where the actual illeagal copying occurs. So I can make n copys and distribute them to all my friends, but the "real" copying (and infringement) doesn't occur until the disc is copied once more, but this time into the RAM of the PS2. Isn't this just semantics. This doesn't make sense.
Wait a goddamn minute. (Score:2, Insightful)
wait a minute, this sounds familiar.
Oh right, it was that blockhead who's the head of the MPAA. Jack Valenti. Once again, another company wants to set rules on private use of their product. What if I do want to use a fork to brush my hair? Maybe that butter knife actually is a screwdriver! (sorry mom)
How the fuck can the place of purchase of an item, used in your own home, make it illegal being used on the product it was designed to be used with?
Aslong as I paid for the product, $MANUFACTURER of both $DEVICE and $PRODUCT shouldn't give a damn.
More from Gazza: (Score:5, Informative)
Due to recent legal proceedings by Sony towards our sale of the 'M' chip we have decided to remove it, and all Sony related devices from the website.
We were eager to promote this device, which arguably had a legal side (we may still yet have to fight on this, depending on their actions). Our main argument (which is received from reading court actions of something similar), was to be that the 'M' could in fact play imported games, this is a GOOD argument, and although we possibly should have been more restricted in advertising it's other capabilities. The rest of the argument is that because our eastern colleagues do not have access to (and SONY would never give) their patented media-authoring technology, they could not make something that could decipher the media. Therefore, if the original imports played, everything else played... it was just part and parcel of the design. You know, there was even an exerted effort to make sure the Playstation 2 logo remained running on the console when loading games. It was thought this was a 'complimentary feature' and the developers actually wrote code that ensured the logo remained intact, although other modchip developers had blatently completely removed it !
To clarify the statement about the control system above, here's an explanation:
Sony have a system running in the PS2 console that detects when a media is both non-licensed, and also which country it arises from. In the case of their licensed media (territorial lockout, and in the PSX known as the SCEA WIZ Code). It is currently unknown by ourselves as to what this system is called in the PS2. There are some interesting things to look at with this system, because of some factors:
A) Sony do not allow anyone to use this system, and therefore because it is patented, the use of the detection technology is unlawful. In the case of Bleem (emulator software) that won legal standing, it appears that they could not implement region or copy protection control into their software, because Sony did not allow them to use the patented technology. Therefore, Bleem software actually ran copied software and imported games because it had no control system used to stop this. So where is the circumvention (which is exactly what it is in basis) in context ? inside the machine, outside the machine, in the electronic guts of the console, or on the disks themselves ?
Looking closely:
It becomes obvious that the territorial and licensed media information is actually on the game disks themselves (otherwise the console will not be able to recognize the difference between disks), so if a software is allowing the import, and non-licensed versions to run, then the system on the disk MUST have been defeated ?
B) In the case of manufacturing a modchip device to play imported games, the fact that the region / copy control is defeated in the same case, it is not possible to have one without the other. Therefore, similar to the case of Bleem, the technology to control this system is not available, and even if were available, is not possible to use due to patent laws and Sony holding this close to their chest. So end result = same as Bleem, the whole kit and kaboodle must play, because you are 1) not allowed to use the technology, or 2) you use a workaround the patented control, but then lose the ability to define any control parameters.
C) To look a little closer:
Datel & Gameshark produces software that runs on the PS2. When this software runs, it produces a disclaimer of the following: 'this product is not licensed blah blah blah' (cannot remember exactly what !). Anyway, this is unlicensed software running on the console, so how is it done ?
If it is running, then it must have defeated the consoles control system ? (this time within the console), it certainly is not licensed, therefore does it break rules, or simply bend them ?
We know EXACTLY how Datel fools the console, and make it think it's software is a 'legal' media ('legal' as in a technical form, 'illegal' being one that is not allowed). Sony have tried to counter-act the loading of Datel disks on subsequent releases of their console models, but Datel have reverse engineered this and usually within a few weeks have produced a 'compatible' version.
Now look at all that has been written above, and start to analyze what you find:
A) Bleem plays imported and unlicensed software, therefore it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the disks from Sony.
B) Datel & Gameshark disks play on the PS2 console (and are unlicensed), therefore they defeat (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the console from sony.
So, we must now look at the 'M' and take into context with the information given above (we'll call it 'C')
C) Messiah plays licensed and unlicensed software, therefore it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the disks from Sony, OR it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the console from Sony ?
When you start to try to get your brain wrapped around what's written above, it can become completely confusing, but there are grey area's of legal matter that must be answered:
Does the 'M' actually defeat BOTH systems?, and IF NOT, does it then become any more illegal (or legal) than those products stated above ?
THE ANSWER IS: NO !
'M' defeats ONLY the consoles control systems, therefore it can be deemed to be akin to the Datel / Gameshark in its way of working. Of course, he Datel / Gameshark disk are the ONLY disks that load directly from the defeat (lucky them), so it appears that this defeat of the system can be 'overlooked' conveniently !
technically, the ways of owrking are completely different, but in context with the 'end reasult', we are merely stating that the 'M' fools the console, and so does the Datel and Gameshark to attain it's desired results, and this 'foooling' is the requirement of defeating the control system. (or protection).
(But its interesting to see that these disk from Datel / Gameshark are quite easily 'upgraded' to provide the necessary functions with such as simple item as a paperclip, knife or a credit card): some interesting links given below:
http://www.ps2ownz.com/cardswap.htm
http://www.ps2ownz.com/paperclipswap.html
http://www.ps2ownz.com/cogswap.html
The above methods used by those that seek an expanded result from the defeated control system.
It should be noted, that with all the above, the control system on the game disks from Sony still remains intact.
It's interesting to think on a few matters:
Channel Technology have NEVER sold a pic-type modchip of the type such as for instance (take a NEO 2) for the PS2. This by far is probably the most popular brand of modchip, and sites all over the internet sell them without hinderance. There must be millions of these devices sold throughout the world, and the software for such devices (hex code), is freely available for download. (their purposes clearly explained where Subsequently, the sale of Datel & Gameshark Software rocketed because of the public's knowledge of their unison.
(using a pic-mod with Datel software = Interesting results). The end result of this unison is of course, playback of unlicensed media. Although there are 'millions' of these devices on sale, and we never sold any of them, we are apparently deemed 'more culperable' because our version did not need a disk-swap.
SHEESH !!!
Is not the end result exactly the same thing ?
We could understand a little more if the unison between these two products allowed Imported Games to play, but they DO NOT... FACT, therefore, the ONLY use of a PIC-BASED modchip, is to play Unlicensed Media.. this is a BIG FULL STOP !
It's interesting to note how a 'level of Technology' now comes into play with the onslaught of Sony against Channel Technology. Although Channel Technology NEVER contributed ONE single pic-based modchip to the millions in use on PS2 consoles throughout the world, the one Professional design in the world that allowed legal playing of Imported Original games, and gave improvements such as full screen playback on these, and also took care to leave the copyrighted logo in place in the machine, is the one that stirs the mighty wrath of the giant Sony Corporation to see an end to it even before release, and will probably end the Channel Technology business.
Is it a fair world we live in ?
As proprietor of Channel Technology, I have to say a big NO to that question. I sat by here and NEVER became involved in the mass sales of these crappy 'pic-based' mods that were being advertised as 'play your CDR backups' and were flooding the world etc. and watched the world go by without becoming a part of this. If we were to bring forward a design, it would be a technically CORRECT design, that MUST play original imported games. (Our BM3 design was capable of playing imported PSX titles (a first on PS2), but the PS2 titles capabilities were not to come until developed by our eastern colleagues).
Moving on to a slightly altered topic, let's look at the scenario of someone who has a modified 'M' machine, and compare it to someone who has a modified NEO 2 Machine, with a Datel Action Replay disk, and these people are going to 'possibly' break the law by running pirated software:
Firstly the 'M' machine:
Human being has modified machine, wishes to play duplicated software. He may A) obtain a copy, or B) produce a copy himself.
If he travels road A), there is argument that he has bought pirate software, BUT, he HAS NOT defeated the control system on the disk himself, therefore there is argument that if he were to say purchase a HK Silver game (pressed disk manufactured in a factory), although he may well have bought a pirate disk (NOT ALL HK SILVER DISKS ARE PIRATE, THERE ARE MANY SLIDE-SHOW (XXX Rated) TITLES AVAILABLE FROM ASIA THAT ARE HK SILVER PRESSED DISKS THAT RUN ON THE PS2), he has NOT defeated the copy protection himself, therefore does not contravene any laws (such as section 296 of the Copyright, Patents and Designs act).
If the human produces a copy himself (using a cd-writer), then he MAY have infringed the law (This is not solid-set, and the law changes between different countries of the world). The UK laws state that 'where necessary', it is allowed that ONE backup of software be allowed.
This 'where necessary' clause can be deemed to be a little wide. For instance:
Human lives in the UK, and goes to the USA, and purchases / returns with a licensed game, and he will play on his 'M' upgraded console. BUT, after a few days in the grubby hands of the kids, he notices the disk is suffering. So he decides to make a backup, in the knowledge that he has little chance of obtaining a replacement from the USA as he will not receive 'support' outside the country. Is this now a 'where necessary' situation ?
But to dig deeper:
He now has his backup, which he has made under belief of the 'where necessary' clause. He places this backup in the console and 'M' boots the game.
What is now the scenario ?
Is 'M' illegal because it is booting a 'where necessary' instance ?
And if the owner of the 'where necessary' backup tried to boot his 'where necessary' backup on an UN-modified console, would the 'restrictions' imposed by the console actually be denying him of a legal right ?
Let's go another step further:
'M' would have had no way of knowing if the 'where necessary' title that was loaded was an original or backup. This is because as mentioned at the very top of this page, the patented technology was not available to it, so it must be asked:
QUESTION: Is 'M' playing the backup, or is the Human playing the backup ?And further, is the backup actually illegal, or falling under the 'where necessary' clause ?
The answer is summed in one quotation that I gave once on Messiah-worlds:
" 'M' does not play pirate software, Humans do" !
OK, so the human played the backup, and he did this by placing the disk in the tray and it booted. BUT, what happens if its a NEO2 ?:
Forget all the mumbly-jumbly, lets just look at the human playing his 'where necessary' backup:
To play with this version of chip, he first needs to load the Datel disk (defeats preliminary control system), and then he will use the NEO 2 to eject the disk tray and place his 'where necessary' backup in and the game will load.
WHAT is the difference ????, the backup is loaded and is playing !!!!!!!
Does 1+1 being sold as a package make ANY difference whatsoever ?
It appears it does, and although millions of 1+1's are on sale, its only the '1's that matter.
More food for thought:
Definitions: (in relative context)
CDR
(Media that is on recordable disks, can be software developed that will run on the PS2 if modified, this software can be found many places on the internet, and you will come across small game programs, graphics demonstrations, art etc. etc. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
DVDR
The same as above, but a different medium, 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
BACKUP
Could be a backup of the above mentioned software (not the original disk). 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
HK SILVERS
Factory pressed disk (usually silver bottomed), can be duplications of the software mentioned above, or in fact as seen recently, slide shows etc.
The 'conception' that HK Silver means 'illegal is totally false. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
DVD SILVERS
Exactly the same as above.
'M' will direct boot these without swap.
IMPORTS
Games / films purchased abroad, but shipped into your resident country. This is not illegal, and neither is the business of importing consoles. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
PS2 BACKUPS
Software written to run on the PS2 operating system, and then 'backed up' from the original disk (many forms of this available on the internet, again, graphics, animations, games etc.) 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
PSX Backups
Same as the above, but written for the PSX operating system. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
So, when you look at the 'capabilities' of a design on a site, you make sure you understand the exact meanings that can be implied by functions stated.
Only the Illegally thinking mind thinks illegally !
'He's NOT the Messiah, and certainly not my savior,
But I followed him faithfully' !
(Gazza, 2001)
What license? (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see what evidence, if any, that Sony submitted, to support their allegation that the users are bound by the terms of some license. (Whatever evidence it was, it was apparently good enough to convince the judge. That's why I'd really like to see it.) I don't know how things work in UK, but here in USA, we normally purchase commerical software, not license it. This is especially true with console games, where the transaction is simply a cash-for-game deal between a retailer and an anonymous customer.
Another thing about that wording, is that it's not even clear who they are talking about. It almost sounds like the judge may have been referring to a license between Sony and some other entity (not the user) (perhaps a distributor or something like that?) -- i.e. we're not just talking about a EULA here. If that's true, it's very interesting, since it means that UK law allows a deal between two parties, to somehow magically cause a third party to unknowingly assume abligations. That would be really bizarre.
Sweet day for Dreamcast... (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe someone can explain (Score:2)
'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game
Exactly how is this obvious? It seems to be the same argument that was made against VCRs when they came out. Who was the plaintiff in that one? Why, it was Sony, wasn't it? And has history shown that the argument was true?
There already IS homebrew software on the ps2... (Score:2, Informative)
And here's how to use it.
I've been in the ps2 homebrew dev scene and here are a few things that people need to know about the ps2 protection.
The ps2 checks the protection once when the disk is loaded. It's possible and very easy to do a swap trick using a gameshark2 or a codebreaker cheat disk. I wired up an override switch for the tray motor on my ps2 using 2 dpdt switches and a diode. (pull +5v from the mainboard and run it through the diode to drop the voltage a bit before wiring to the drive tray motor)
There is plenty of info online on how to do this.
Check current modchip diagrams for where to get +5v and grnd.
A ps2 drive will read ps2 and ps1 disks. It's possible to make the ps2 run a ps1 disk as if it were a ps2 disk. This is how all the ps2 modchips work. Put a ps1 modchip in your ps2 and do a swap with a gameshark (no switch needed). The ps2 will think it's a ps1 disk and the gameshark/codebreaker will boot it as if it were a ps2 disk. (no switches needed)
Now the most convenient solution is to patch the ps2 rom so that it can decide how to boot a disk by using some other method than the protection.
This is how the latest mods work (neo4/messiah).
It's also doable by any determined hardware hacker. I expect very simple instructions to surface soon especially if the modchips get pushed underground.
DISCLAIMER:
I'm only a programmer and practically none of this info was discovered by me. I'll credit anyone who wants me to
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, now they're gonna lose all those masses of people who want to write their own games and all those valuable customers who just want to pirate games!!! How are they going to make profit on selling those hardware boxes now!?!?
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason anyone ever fits a mod-chip is so they can pirate games. And all consoles follow the Gillette model. Sell them the razors, and they'll buy the blades from you for years to come.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Back-ups of games that you currently own. Especially if you have kids this should be a neccesity.
2. While not legal changing the region of your DVD to play foriegn movies should be.
3. Playing Japanese and other language imports. Alternately taking a German or French system and allowing it to play american games. (note, this is what me and the roommates modded our PS1 for. You cannot get a lot of games in america.)
Anybody who is going to go to the big ass hassle of modding a playstation probably has bought a plethora of games as well. So yes, Sony is alienating thier most die-hard customers.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:2, Insightful)
2. While not legal changing the region of your DVD to play foriegn movies should be.
3. [identical to 2]
So, really, you were only able to come up with one reason, albeit a good one. But i'd guess that the number of people "backing up" games they actually paid for is dwarved by the number of people just pirating them, in which case it's in Sony's best interest to disallow it.
As for the idiot who started this thread ("Sweet Day for X-Box"), are you implying that Microsoft will go easy on pirates? Does the Business Software Alliance ring a bell? Then again, since the X-Box is really just a trojan built to get into people's living rooms, they might turn a blind eye if it means increased console sales. But the hammer will fall, as always, once they've achieved a comfortable monopoly.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, there exists a mod chip for the PS1 that only allows original imports to be played - NOT copies.
Whether this is any different is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:4, Insightful)
That highly spread misconception really annoys me. First off, it's not ENTIRELY true.
Everyone likes to think game consoles manufacturers make ALL of their money on software sales, and ALWAYS take a loss on the system. It quite simply isn't all there is to it.
Normally when a system debutes all of the real profit comes from software sales, this is true. The system still "Costs" more than it sells for because the R&D revenue hasn't been made back. The first two years of console sales tend to make that back. After that, continued sales tend to lean more and more towards the profit side, simply because the costs of manufacturing fluctuates and most companies that make a whole lot of something are constantly trying to cut costs in one form or another.
So while software sales ARE the most important factor in the end, the company STILL generates a lot of it's revenue from hardware sales as well because when selling systems you also get the bonus of selling controllers and accessories which have very high profit margins.
If console manufacturers didn't make profit on the consoles, there wouldn't be any console manufacturers. They would ALL be concentrating on software like Sega did.
It took two consecutive lost battles (32x and Saturn) to weaken Sega enough that they were in a state to give up so quickly on the Dreamcast. Had they been able to endure another year, they could've easily been profitable while making consoles. However, with the Gamecube and XBox adding to the Playstation 2 threat, Sega didn't have much hope.
But don't think it's because there's no money in hardware, that simply isn't true. There's PLENTY of money in hardware, even Nintendo claims they never take a loss on hardware sales (though that's hard to believe considering the Gamecube only costs $199). I think it simply stands true that while there is money in hardware, there is MORE money in software, and that will probably always be the case.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but it should be worried about alienating customers who love the product so much they'll pay extra to import games from Japan as soon as they're released, and rave to friends about how good they are, generating more sales when the games are released in Europe.
Any brand-oriented company in a commodity market knows, you piss off trend-setters and early adopters at your peril. Especially if you're competing against other very strong brands who can do most of what you can, and more of their own.
Re:DVD Region Code? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Very Low Damages (Score:2)
Re:The reason this is done (Score:2)
Re:Oh, well . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at their digital cameras, for example. While everyone else in the market standardized on one of two memory cards, Sony had to be different and require their own "Sony memory stick" instead.
When it comes to camcorders, they do things differently too. Everyone else sells DV capable camcorders that use "DV tape". Not Sony. Instead, they sell DV camcorders using Hi8 tape, and write to it in a proprietary fashion to achieve the same results. (Granted, they allow backwards compatibility *playing* normal Hi8 tape, so you don't feel too non-standard.)
People who used to sell home and car audio can attest to their tactics too. Quite often, Sony will go out of their way to use a proprietary connector or cable to attempt to lock you into using only Sony authorized accessories.
They get away with all of this for one big reason; the stuff is good quality. When it comes down to it, Sony sells all manner of electronics and does a damn good job of it. If you try to boycott Sony, you only shoot yourself in the foot at some point. Often-times, they have the best product for a particular item and price-point.
Re:Oh, well . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
The amusing thing is that they have exactly the opposite reputation in their home country. I don't know why, but for some reason it seems that Japanese folks tend to think of Sony as synonymous with shoddy workmanship. Maybe they have a history of releasing a lot of duds in Japan that they just don't bother trying to export, so we only see the good stuff over here. Anybody know more about why that is?
Re:Oh, well . . . (Score:2)
When it comes to camcorders, they do things differently too. Everyone else sells DV capable camcorders that use "DV tape". Not Sony.
That's funny, I guess my (Mini-DV) TRV-900 doesn't exist?
Sony has several lines of DV camcorders: the cheaper ones use digital-8, the higher end use Mini-DV, which is standard across most high end, consumer grade camcorders. Simple product differentiation- no great conspiracy.
Eric
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:5, Informative)
Now the first sale doctrine is being eroded in two ways:
1) software is typically "licensed", not sold. If courts continue to find that software, even when distributed shrink wrapped for a one off fee can legally be considered to be licensed and not sold, software makers can put a lot more restrictions on their customers than with an outright sale. For licensed products you are not the owner, you are merely granted certain rights to the product for a specified time period (which may be unlimited) under certain terms. If you'd bought the product outright, you'd only be restricted by law, not by license terms dictated by the owner.
2) Companies are given increasing consessions for using patent, copyright and trade secret laws to make modifications to their products impractical - the first use doctrine will still protect you in many countries against doing modification yourself, but increasingly consessions made by the courts prevents people from providing mods or doing them for profit.
Why should this be right?
Would you tolerate a "license agreement" the next time you buy a car that prevent you from putting in a different car stereo, or that prevents you from opening the hood and doing modifications that haven't been bought from the manufacturer and approved by them?
The car isn't theirs anymore, so why should they have any say on how you use it, as long as you don't violate copyright, trademark or patent law in building exact duplicates for sale?
Yet with software and, increasingly, hardware, we tolerate buying "licenses" instead of buying the product, and being tied down to restrictive agreements that would be null and void or even illegal in most other cases. In many jurisdictions, a product will normally be considered to be sold outright if the license is perpetual and there is only one fixed payment when aquiring the license, and any license agreement can then be found to be invalid - unfortunately, software and computer related hardware seems to be treated as an exception more and more places.
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't. That is already illegal under copyright law. The licences on software merely impose further restrictions on you, they are not the copyright holder's sole protection.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:2)
When you buy a book you own it. That does not give you copyright to the text embodied in it - you are still bound by copyright law that allow you to make copies for personal use (in most countries anyway), and in other very restricted circumstances, and that clearly forbid you from mass copying whether for profit or not.
The same copyright laws protect the text of the book whether it is in printed or electronic form.
The same way, if you were buying software outright instead of buying a license to use it, you would be buying that embodiment on it, subject to all the same constraints of copyright law.
In other words your argument is fatally flawed, but it is a good example of exactly the kind of arguments that the software industry (and indeed the movie and music industry) have been trying to use in order to justify their licensing scheme.
Licenses are being used not to enforce copyright - copyright law enforces copyright - they are there to enforce restrictions that go beyond the protection that is given by law.
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:2)
Furthermore, as long as I don't infringe on any patents , I can SELL hardware that works with the original hardware perfectly legally. Obviously, these guys weren't infringing on any patents, or Sony would have easily trounced them on those grounds. No, they had to find a stupid judge or a stupid law and get a really warped ruling, one that wouldn't get past U.S. law, thank goodness.
BTW, I'm not suffering one bit because people mod PS2's to play copied games. I am suffering because greed & stupidity is encouraging anti-competitive trusts to buy laws that encroach on my hard-won freedoms.
I'd far rather see Sony, Universal, et al. go out of business than see one person arrested and jailed for writing a program that *might* be used for copyright infringement. If they can't compete in an open market, fuck 'em.
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:2)
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:2)
Oh man, I just bleed sympathy for you.
To everyone else:
I apologize if my language offends anyone I'm not responding directly to. As for those I'm responding directly to, in this and other posts, if you are offended--tough. I'm trying to offend you. And don't waste the effort telling me not to post again--I'll pay the same attention to you that I do to software EULAs.
(Yes, today's level of utter idiocy on
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:2)
The thing that is so galling in this case is that unlike PC software, the user *has not* agreed to any form of license agreement with Sony when purchasing the software. The software *is not* 'licensed to be used in one region', it is purchased. I should be able to do anything I like with it that does not infringe on the copyright of Sony, and if I'm not copying it, then I'm not infringing on anything.
Re:Stop with the car examples already (Score:2)
Does the owner of the PS2 somehow not have less rights than a car owner?
If Sony had patents that covered the modifying of their system, then they would have taken them to court over patent infringement. The fact is they don't have patents covering that, so they've had to rely on the very dubious claim that they somehow 'license' the use of the games software to the consumer.
Sony produces a product that may people regard as flawed, in that it fails to play other region games. There are companies that sell modifications that fix the defect in Sony's original design, and people make use of them. Really, you still have to prove your point.
Re:Stop with the car examples already (Score:2)
Re:Wow, that's tough ... or not (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with these game consoles is that unless you work for a multi-million dollar company... and pay SONY ultra-big-bucks... you can't write for them. This greatly limits the number of fun games and useful products that could exist for PS2 and other devices.
Case in point... we would like to port our tranquility game (tqworld [tqworld.com]) to PS 2 -- but Sony won't even return our calls - why? because we arn't a BIG COMPANY with a BIG NAME and a BIG SAVINGS ACCOUNT from which to write SONY BIG BUCKS.
What this means is that we are held at bay by a limited number of games - in a limited number of genres - from a limited number of manufacturers.
The OLD BOYS CLUB.
Now sure... it's SONYs right to decide who can and can not create games for their devices... but their devices would be *oh so much more popular* if they opened up the game interface and allowed us regular joes to throw our programming talents at it.
Additionally... SONY seems to prefer to fund companies who create extremely violent games -- while ignoring companies who create games that are non-violent -- a highly unbalanced playing field.
Think, a moment, what would happen if MicroSoft, or Apple... removed the ability for you to put compilers on their computers and write your own code. What if the computer manufacturers would ONLY allow code from *licensed* companies to run. That would not only kill the entire programming profession, it would create a huge unbalance of software and capabilities.
Now consider what happens when Game Consoles MERGE with computers... will this be the outcome? Only writing programs for Microsoft if you PAY MS big money to be the privledged one to do so?
PS 1 is most popular _BECAUSE_ of pirate software! (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't see this as being good for PS2 sales
Agreed!
The reason the PS became the best selling console in the UK was because people could easliy pirate games onto a CD and play them with a mod chip.
No way could you easily pirate a Nintendo/sega cartrage.
Any market will have a stall selling dodgey pirate games, and any (indipendent) games shop will happily chip a PS for you.
In stopping this illegal trade, Sony are harming themselves not helping themselves!