Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules For Connectix, Against Sony
Robotech_Master writes "According to this article in Wired News, a court has just dismissed many of Sony's charges against Connectix in the Virtual Game Station emulation case, noting that 'both copyright and trademark law favor broad consumer choice.'"
This is great, the courts are finally recognizing what we've known all along: The Internet makes IP an obsolete mess. It's holding back progress. The economy will be crippled if we keep granting artificial government-enforced monopolies to all comers.
Now that the courts see the wisdom of an unimpeded free market in ideas, we can expect the uptake rate Open Source bazaar paradigm to multiply dramatically. Within five years, there may not be a single surviving proprietary software company on Earth.
Micro$oft, your days are numbered!
(cocky 16-year old nerd voice)
"Yeah, the internet makes IP obsolete! You can download all the porn, warez, and music you want for free, man! These big companies don't have a chance!"
Uh-huh. And if these big companies can't make money, who's going to create the warez and music for you to share? You and your merry band of 3l337 hax0rs?
Great. THAT will bring about some quality products, I'm sure. I guess everyone should get started on business plans to sell support for user-hostile software ("No, ma'am. You have to hit META, then CTRL-z, THEN an 8-digit prime number to go to the end of your file.") If these big companies didn't have something worth paying for, why would you bother getting their stuff in the first place?
You twits oppose intellectual property law for the same reasons a burgler opposes alarm systems. If your mommies and daddies would just raise your allowance so you could buy more CDs, you wouldn't gripe.
What we need now is a punishment for people who use them as a fear tactics against consumers.i.e. claiming something is copywritten when it isn't or filing for copyright on things that clearly violate what is copyrightabls, or claiming something is a violation when it is not.
No kidding. Misrepresenting the law should be illegal. I wouldn't mind seeing those FBI warnings at the beginning of video tapes revised so folks realize the FBI won't beat down your door if you make a backup copy of your video library. And enough of these "Copying of this video{cassette|disc} is prohibited." Prohibited by who? (or is it whom?) Not by law. Uggh... They rape the ignorant - most people don't know they're allowed to copy their own movies, books, music, software, etc, for personal use because of this crap... and so these corporations get away with more, and more, and more. Bastards...
Also, VGS and Bleem both "invite" people to play copied games, because both do not protect against the use of golds. And there's no real way of detecting a protected Playstation Disc, because whatever particularity you find no a PSX disc, you can reproduce it with a burner, except the protection itself which is not readable by a common drive. Doesn't the case of allowing golds to play fall under the DMCA ???
Just an FYI, a large part of Sony Revenue for the playstion (as well as all game consoles) come from peripherals. Extra controllers, plastic controllers, 4-way attatchments, etc. This is also why the Dreamcast did not use standard USB for their controller. Their initial design was, but corporate axed it as they wanted to charge 3rd parties for making peripherals. Fascinating eh?
DCMA's been in effect for a while (couple years about), but some sections just came into effect in April which deal with requirements for hardware manufacturers. Now every VCR/DVD/Etc you buy is required by law to include specific Copy-Protection mechanisms. This means that consumer electronics you buy costs more (than they would have) for a "feature" you do not even want (makes fair use impossible).
DeCSS was reversed engineered for compatibility. The MPAA does not give a sh*t about the law, they (like Microsoft) do NOT want COMPATIBILITY because compatibility means they lose control (and can no longer extort money).
Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
Yeah, the spring 2000 issue of 2600 goes into more detail on how this is done. Neat idea, but like anything, it can be worked around.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
what about PSX2 games?
Will PSX games look as good on PSX2 as they do on Dreamcast/Bleem?
Will there be a Dreamcast emulator for PSX2?
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
even better;
more third-party emulators sold = less money lost selling consoles.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The only thing I can figure is that maybe they're afraid of:
a) Connectix and or Apple enhancing the hw/sw mix of the VGS platform to the point where PSX games look exceptionally better on VGS-Macintosh than PSX consoles. - basically an embarassment to Sony.
b) The existence of a multi-purpose computer system that can play PSX games also makes possible the analysis and circumvention of their game copy-protection scheme, which encourages more widespread piracy.
c) The technical "black-eye" they get when another company figures their shit out.
d) Mac/VGS becomes a more attractive buy for consumers, lowering the marketshare ratio between Macintosh and PSX, causing game developers to go "whoa, maybe it's more profitable to put Mac higher up on our platform priority list", and they're afraid of falling below the cutoff, and being marginallized as a platform. The fact that PSX is THE standard platform for games these days is a big advantage for Sony, as the same holds true for Microsoft when software companies develop for that platform to the exclusion of their competitors.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There was one news story in the last day that may prove to be extremely important, although it was not in slashdot. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women act, because they said that Congress had no authority to pass the act. Congress said that the law derived its authority from the instetstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court said, in effect, "no way."
Violence against women is an awful thing, but justifying it on the grounds of interstate commerce is almost offensive. It feels like almost a direct reference to the idea that virginity or chastity is property, and to rape or attack over sexual reasons is a violation of that property. That's as bothersome as the bloody sheet that gets hung out for the village to see that the new wife was a virgin--it's Just Not Cool.
Now, the real justification that the federal government seems to want to use is, "When a state is unwilling or unable to effect Justice within its territory, the federal government may interdict and enforce its jurisdiction on the uncontrolled territory." State, in this sense, seems to refer to both State of the Union and State in the World.
And, to be honest, I'm just not that sure that's a bad thing. Should require some pretty extreme violations of justice, though.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
http://www.detonate.net/blade/index.php3?page=18
"US-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years." is meant to point out that Democracy, at least in the US, shouldn't/doesn't happen only every 4 years, at a presidential election, it is meant to be praticed every day by every citizen. Kinda a retaliation to the 'you can't complain if you didn't vote' mentality. Which implies you can't complain for 4 years if you didn't vote, which I personally think is ridiculous, and would be highly damaging. but also the equally damaging, oops, i'll vote better in four years ... end rant.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Bleemcast! is going to be a whole other kettle of fish. With VirtualGameStation, you have to have a PC (be it Win9x/x86 or MacOS/PPC) and no person can honestly believe a person would purchase a >$500 system + $30 software to play games from a console that costs $99. Really no percievable overlap in markets. While with Bleemcast! you have Dreamcast which is a direct competitor with the PSX and PSX2. I believe Sony will take a whole other tack with this one. And considering all the previous cases on this subject (numerous Atari, Acorn, Apple II, etc. clone) that all ended in victory of Plaintiff. Only case for Bleemcast! I can think of is the compaq reverse engineering of the IBM PC Bios. But of course, I've been wrong at least 3 times today alone.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
Remember that Sony filed a lawsuit against bleem! to prevent them from incoporating psx copy protection in their emulator (which they didn't).
Actually, PSX2 will do some enhancements similar to what bleem! (D3D) does to PSX1 games, such as increasing the resolution and texture interpolation.
The Dreamcast graphics hardware has a couple extra features that bleem! takes advantage of that the PSX2 does not: trilinear filtering and anti-aliasing.
The PSX2 probably provides more complete emu(sim/cosim)ulation without these features, but bleem! for Dreamcast probably will make some games look a little nicer than even the PSX2 will.
~GoRK
There are a couple things to consider if you're Sony when you look at bleem! and VGS and then throw the bleem! port to Dreamcast into the mix.
Sony has more of an issue with the VGS people reverse engineering the PSX copy protection scheme than emulating the machine itself. This is quite significant in that bleem! couldn't afford to fight Sony on this one and consequently bleem! backed down and does not check the integrity of playstation cd's.
Of course it is widely known that console game companies make more money selling the games than the consoles themselves. I personally think it is a misconception that Sony wants to quaff emulation. I just think that they want to make sure that they get a piece of the profits. If VGS had licensed the copy protection from Sony and Sony had gotten a kickback from the sale of each copy of VGS, lawsuits would have probably been a non-issue as all that VGS could possibly do to Sony is broaden their market and their popularity. It is the REVERSE ENGINEERING that they take issue with and NOT EMULATION. Sony's methods of copy protecting playstation disks are patented and protected and in this particular case there's not much of an argument against that particular fact. No matter who argues for the "freedom of information," "Broad customer choice," or whatnot, it's very difficult to argue that an emulator should be able to play a backup copy of a PSX game any more than a legitimate Playstation should. (Especially when Sony will send you a replacement disk if your original copy breaks or otherwise becomes unplayable.) [Personal note: I think that emulation software and all legitimate playstation hardware should also be able to run original software/demos/etc.]
Sony's case against bleem! and VGS was to protect Sony's rights to their copy protection system. Granted, they also went after the emulation aspect as well, but the copy protection was the major thing. The media and the public seems to mangle these facts every time Sony vs. the Emu's comes up.
Sega is obviously condoning this (as they gave bleem! a development license) -- and they get a kickback from sales of bleem! for Dreamcast. If you look at the bleem! for Dreamcast situation, Sony would have much to gain by not having made such a fuss of this whole thing from the beginning - e.g. if bleem! for Dreamcast had copy-protection measures then Sony would lose much less money to piracy than it obviously will now.
Sony shot itself in the foot with emulation. It should have jumped in to help VGS and bleem! (which could have very easily included contracts to distribute the emulation software with copy-protection measures.) They would have had a lot to gain doing that.
~GoRK
If the Playstation games look better on the Dreamcast than on the PSX2, it might provide incentive for a different upgrade path than Sony had planned. Even if the titles look equally good, if both the PSX2 and Dreamcast can play old Playstation games that particular benefit is eliminated from the PSX2's favor.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
There was one news story in the last day that may prove to be extremely important, although it was not in slashdot. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women act, because they said that Congress had no authority to pass the act. Congress said that the law derived its authority from the instetstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court said, in effect, "no way."
Congress regularly uses the Interstate Commerce Clause -- which says that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce -- to pass laws that really have nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has gone along with this practice for a long time, but the current court appears ready to impose limits.
If the court has in fact decided to end the "interstate commerce loophole", then huge bodies of federal law will be vulnerable and may be challenged, as much of federal law has no constitutional basis besides the thinly stretched doctrine of "it somehow affects interstate commerce."
and that would have enormous consequences.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny or what... But the internet is hardly the PC's territory as compared to Playstation games being Sony's territory.
The internet existed for years before PC's even existed. Right now, the majority of machines connected to the internet are "PC's", but when the day comes taht everyone's alarm clocks, refridgereators, TV's, coffee makers, refridgerators, and home security systems (Hello, George Orwell!) are all connected to the internet, the PC will be relegated to a much smaller percentage of systems out there.
Not that I'm saying that Sony should be allowed to bar a clean-room reverse engineered title from the market (in fact, I'd think they'ed want to encourage it... Developers need to buy pricey systems from them to develop games, they need to get license SDK's from them, they need to pay them royalties, while sony apparently loses money on each playstation it sells...). I just don't think that anyone should say that the internet is the territory of the PC...
Keep walking in that direction and you'll find yourself saying that the internet is in fact the territory of Windows... Which is owned by Microsoft, which would in fact make the internet Microsoft's territory. No... The internet was developed as a heterogenious (sp?) network.
That's all for now...
Version 1.0 on the Mac did play pirated games. Sony yelled and jumped up and down a little bit, and Connectix rolled out version 1.01 which supported a few more games (i believe) but refused to play pirated games anymore... Since then, I don't think that there's been a commercial emulator that can play pirated games. Something about an intentionally messed up checksum on one of the CD sectors that gets fixed when the CD is copied and lets the playstation know not to play it.
So, what about other emulators? Will the courts eventually decide that Sony is just playing games, and has no real case?
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
It's still positive; after all, every one of these *could* have been a problem, and been expensive to fight; getting a few of them removed from the list makes it that much safer for Connectix.
Additionally, courts sometimes take other rulings into account; if there is adequate evidence that a party is not acting in good faith, it's possible for that to work against that party in other rulings.
A judge who sees Sony making things up for several of their charges will be less sympathetic to them on the trade secret charge.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
Ummm... I don't quite understand you.. I agree with the "true artists" portion, but I feel you have a gap in your metaphor to open source. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe that art is at work in many people's programmatic creations, but the crux of the matter is that people have an intrinsic need to share their creations. Not to mention that most "artists" worked for monies doing prtraits and the like for the rich folk who paid them. That's how they survived. They didn't demand that every peasant down the street had the right to bring the historical equivalent of silly putty to be able to make copies or to even view it publicly.
My personal feeling as a programmer/systems engineer is that somebody pays me to solve their problem. However, the solution I provide, I should be able to give away to someone else. The original person who paid me is losing nothing, even though they had to pay and others didn't. The solution was personalized for them, and I fulfilled a need that they had that didn't previously exist in the world. That is what open source is to me. I don't see it as a bunch of guys trying to build something "because they can"... I see it as "because it solves a problem" whether it be to undermine a monopoly (BTW, how did Microsoft decide how much a product costs without competition?) or to feed a craving to try a new technology or whatever. This last example is typical of creation for creation's sake.
If economic value is the only value you recognize, of course, this makes less than sense. In fact, it's downright scary. That's why the suits and the drones and droids absolutely despise and (I think) secretly fear the FSOS movement. They don't understand it, because it's not entirely driven by economic profit. But if you free your mind from those sorts of blinders you begin to see that such things can make sense.
Yes and Yes and Yes and Yes and Yes
The key is that companies spend X man hours on something and expect to get back 20X man hours worth of "value" by selling it to everyone. What's wrong with getting paid for the X man hours or even 2X hey, go crazy, and then doing more man hours? There's always something new and exciting on the horizon. Blows the hell out of Anne Rand, "get whatever the market will bear", but what the heck..
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
Nope. Connectix is a software company that makes cool Mac products like Virtual PC, Speed Doubler, RAM Doubler, and the VGS.
Perhapes you're thinking of ConXion which is used to mirror software and stuff for downloading.
or an Airline?
There's a lot more too...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Frankly, I don't understand why Sony ever filed these charges in the first place. How are they hurt by emulation? They sell playstations at a loss! They make all their money on the games. When you have a playstation emulator for your PC, you end up buying the games without buying the playstation, which Sony actually loses money on anyway. It seems to me that they are better off with emulation.
Understand that this isn't the same as somebody like Nintendo suing the makers of an emulator. In that case, since the Nintendo systems use cartridges, all the games anyone will ever acquire for a N64 emulator will be pirated. But with a playstation emulator, you just buy the game and stick the CD in your computer. Sure, there are ways to make copies of the CD and then run these copies with your emulator, but there are ways to do that with a playstation console as well.
So I just don't get it. What is Sony trying to accomplish with lawsuits like this? Is it simply a matter of control?
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
By like reasoning, I would suppose, there can be no such thing as invasion of privacy.
In fact, Judge Legge is a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the federal trial court in which Sony sued Connectix. He had previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Sony and against Connectix on the basis that Sony was likely to succeed on its copyright and trademark claims. The Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court which hears appeals from the Northern District of California) instructed Judge Legge to dissolve this preliminary injunction in its February 10, 2000 opinion:
In light of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Judge Legge has now ruled that these claims by Sony (though not all claims by Sony) are deficient as a matter of law. Readers may judge for themselves whether they should be surprised by this turn of events.
The dreamcast uses the trademark bit, the sony copy protection is straight CRC errors. VGS currently will NOT play a gold disc without a software crack, just as a regular PS won't play a gold disc without a hardware crack.
Actually, I think the story says that the CEO of Connectix (not the court) touted this as indicative of the law's support for 'broad consumer choice.'
"The horse leech's daughter is a closed system. Her quantum of wantum does not vary."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Sorry, the Wired article suggested that Judge Bleem's opinion issued from the 9th Circuit, so I pulled up the most recent Sony case from that Court. (Judge Bleem is a District Court (trial) judge in the Northern District of California, and not a Circuit Court judge, though from time to time District Court Judges are asked to sit temporarily as a Circuit Court judge).
I was unable to find the Connectix opinion available online.
The Bleem case is quite interesting, and is a playstation interpreter case as well. Perhaps Judge Legge was moved, at least in part, by the scolding he received just last week in Bleem?
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
The truth is rather more interesting.
One problem is that today it costs zillions of dollars to produce a film or album.
Perhaps some artists will forego life and livelihood for the "sake of the art," by begging up funds to stretch a canvas or paper to etch out a novel. In the meanwhile, we all lose out while those talented and smart enough to create, but who can't get resources go to law school instead.
However much the artists may "have to" create, no one else needs to give them a dime to do so.
The opinion in Sony v. Bleem, No. 99-17137 (9th Cir. 2000), is available online at the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals web site
So what's gonna happen if they stole trade secrets???
It wouldn't be good.
Depending upon the statute, the court could grant an injunction against using the product, an award of damages, treble damages, an award of attorney fees and court costs, or worse.
A finding of misapproporiation could also expose Connectix to criminal penalties, including the substantial civil forfeiture provisions of the EEA.
Actually, I think I read somewhere that PSX2 will make PSX1 games look at least a little better, in addition to improving load times. (Damn! Now if I could just find the link...)
According to the Daily Radar the Bleemcast will come over 4 different CD's. That article also provides some excellent comparison pics between a regular PSX and Bleem. I'll probally sell my PSX and get Bleem since I already own a DC, and the games look so much better; even better than they would look on a PS2.
I don't know for sure, but all the needed reverse engineering might have taken place before DMCA took effect.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
Party time. Now if only Connectix would make a linux port... But seriously, this is the only good piece of legal news I've heard in a long time. Maybe there is still hope.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
does any one know where to find the crack to connectix virtual game station for mac that will let me play games of of cd-r's?
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
What you're overlooking is that Bleem sucks no matter WHAT you put it on.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
"We are prepared to move forward with the misappropriation of trade secrets claim," said Molly Smith, spokeswoman for Sony Computer Entertainment America.
This is consistent with their position in favor of banning/suing deCSS, banning/suing mp3 companies, and forcing their engineers to committ sepuku (sp?) if consumers figure out ways to use sony products in accordance with US fair use policy.
i wish they'd just stuck to the freakin walkman, myself.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
So the obvious question that comes to my mind is: isn't this great news for the Dreamcast? Bleem is coming out with a Dreamcast port of their software. People will now be able to play a vast array of Playstation games on their Dreamcast, with the games looking better on the Dreamcast than they looked originally on the Playstation.
Using Bleem, Dreamcast owners will have access to 400 or so Playstation games, along with a projected 200 Dreamcast games, before Playstation 2 is even released in the US.
This could make things interesting!
--- Biffster.org
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
"The electronics giant also claimed that Connectix tarnished the PlayStation trademark by selling the rival Virtual Game Station product."
"Dilution by tarnishment occurs when a famous mark is linked to poor quality or unwholesome products, or otherwise displayed in a derogatory manner.[46] If the use of the mark does not result in negative associations for the senior trademark user, then there is no dilution by tarnishment." - http://www.loundy.com/JMLS-Trademark.html
It sounds like Sony was really reaching to try and get Connectix on any of these kinds of accusations. I doubt that the dismissal of those charges were in any way a shock to Sony. I'm guessing they've been aiming to nail Connectix on the theft of a trade-secret all along, and these other trumped up charges are just for filler. As a result, I don't think the dismissal of these issues is really a positive sign for Connectix at all; rather, it probably bodes that the legal battle is going just as Sony has intended it to all along. With the verdict on the trade-secret theft pending, I wouldn't be popping marguaritas at Connectix any time soon....
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
Or even lamer, you can reverse engineer, except things that we try in a half-ass manner to protect.
- passion
This makes a rather strong statement about other emulators, that as long as you don't steal anything they tried to hide, you can emulate anything that you want. Including, Game consoles, Operating Systems, etc.
This is a rather strong blow for consumer rights, and I give Connectix a big high-five to take on Sony.
Now I'll probably actually buy one of these things...
- passion
This adds a bit of scrutiny on the MPAA's case. Everyone here will agree the MPAA is ethically in the wrong, but are they legally in the wrong? Maybe the MPAA knows it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but since DVD is it's cash-cow, it's using legal intimidation to wear down people completely in the right (IE: DeCSS for compatibility purposes). Maybe Sony knew that that route was a losing battle and decided to not even pursue it.
Just some thoughts ...
Earlier this year, the court issued a ruling upholding Connectix's right to use a process known as reverse engineering to develop a product for playing PlayStation games on home computers.
Wonder why Sony isn't hiding under the umbrella of the DMCA like the MPAA with DeCSS. Perhaps there was no protection (to parallel with the weak encryption used by CSS) to be broken in order to reverse engineer?
This whole thing gets sillier all the time. "You can reverse engineer, except things we protect so that you dont."
TO stay somewhat on topic, I don't really see why it upset Sony so much. They sell the console at a loss (initially anyway) and make the majority of the revenue from the licensing of games. You would think that:
More people able to play PSX games = more games sold = more licensing revenue.
I could see Sony going apeshit about people developing (more importantly, selling) unlicensed games, but trying to stop an additional way to play licensed games seems counter-productive.
But then again, since when has corporate paranoia made sense? :)
Sooo..if Connectix can reverse engineer Sony software and hardware, what's the difference between that and reverse engineering CSS? Or is this strictly a DCMA thing and Sony didn't sue under that law?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
After all, Sony wasn't whining about Connextix violating DMCA, which favors just the opposite, it was whining about the reasonable forms of copyright.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
They didn't steal trade secrets, they reverse engineered, which is perfectly legal and is an important principle that needs to be protected, IMO.
I believe the original version of Bleem did not have copy protection. Sony balked at that, and Bleem added it to ther later releases. Then Sony sued them for reverse-engineering the copy-protection check (huh?). Now Bleem has said on record that they have given up entirely on copy-protection in the future. I don't think that was the effect Sony had in mind.....
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
"both copyright and trademark law favor broad consumer choice."
Is he actually familiar with copyright law?
Sony has had the repuation of losing. It all started with the DM-198, if you guys remember that lawsuit against Technics, makers of high quality audio gear. Sony's ability to dismiss, replenticize, and gastrosize is what will make Sony be the next future agronaut. Good look boys.
Sony should [although they won't] be pleased. Console hadware is sold either at a loss or barely over cost. I think Sega would be most pissed. Any obstacle to you buying more Dreamcast games [which Sega gets a piece of no matter who wrote it] is bad, bad, bad. Considering how many people already own Playstations [in fact the majority of Dreamcast owners own at least one other system] though I don't think this is going to cause that much of a ruckus outside of the courts.
This will get to court though.
I wonder how Sony would go about proving that they didn't?
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
So what's gonna happen if they stole trade secrets???
[Connection closed by foreign host]
does this case have enough of a relation to the decss case to impact the outcome? It is great to see that the judicial system is starting to see the need for consumer rights, but how far will this go? Hopefully, this is a new beginning. Consumers should NOT be fettered a company's desire to control the market. Free market is what capitalism is all about.
Jaeger
http://334.se2600.org
http://jump.to/jaeger
The article doesn't make any reference to DMCA. Maybe the judge considered DMCA and decided that Connectix didn't violate it. Maybe DMCA wasn't brought up at all. There's a whole lot the article doesn't say, so my comments are mostly speculation...
Baring that disclaimer in mind, I suspect that Sony didn't bring it up because they don't have any "security" for their technology. No encryption like DVDs, no licenses like MS Kerberos.
So apparently it's OK to reverse engineer (or just peek under the hood) only if the company who holds the copyrights doesn't try to prevent it. Under DMCA, the act of putting some (possibly flimsy) protection in place makes reverse engineering illegal.
One of these days, I'm going to get sued for bypassing the copyright protections on a paperback novel by opening the cover.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
It ain't over yet.
"Control the media, control the mind."-Cabal
He bet it in a card game - and lost.
When you smile, the world laughs at you.
Realistically, true artists produce art because they have to -- something in their souls move them and won't allow them to not create. I think that a lot of programmers are similar ... most of the open source projects began because (a) someone had an "itch" they had to scratch and (b) once they had begun to scratch it, they weren't opposed to helping others scrath their itches, too.
If economic value is the only value you recognize, of course, this makes less than sense. In fact, it's downright scary. That's why the suits and the drones and droids absolutely despise and (I think) secretly fear the FSOS movement. They don't understand it, because it's not entirely driven by economic profit. But if you free your mind from those sorts of blinders you begin to see that such things can make sense.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Well, not quite, but I'm in disbelief that the legal teams of these huge corporations aren't winning the battles they are fighting!
What is this world coming to when the people (small timers at least) come before the almighty dollar!
I'm shocked, this is finally Apacolypse Now!
Hopefully some good hackers will create some software for psx2 so we can use it as an mp3 player and vcd player among other things. Any Linux hackers up for the challenge? That will piss Sony off!
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
...................
...................
...................
I totaly agree with Passion. I don't think the Judge realises that he just opened up a Pandoras box concerning the emulation of software. This paves the way for WINE to reverse engineer the Microsoft library to better emulate windows for running the windows software. If the happens, I am sooo there.
The problem is that game developers will still want to develop games for Sony's console system, whatever they come out with. If Sony charges a per game sold fee and a company makes an emulator for that system. Sony still gets their cut of the action. So PC gamers get to play Sony games on home PC boxes and Sony still gets money for it. So whats Sonys problem with this besides the fact that they lose sales of a console? If a developer wants to make games for the PC they would do so, unfortunaly Sony makes them agree that the game they create would be only for their product.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At least consumer rights are being considered SOMEWHERE...
"Ow, my spleen!"
"replenticize, and gastrosize"
Seriously, did you make those up, or do they really exist?
It sounds like the courts are finally realizing that you can put a Ford engine in a Chevy body without having to ask Ford's okay first
- "That's a big no can do" - B. Banzai