Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation Reverse Engineering Stands Up In Court
hobbs writes: "The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Sony,
suing Connectix (Bleem) for reverse engineering their
PlayStation BIOS. This wasn't about copyright, just
reverse engineering, which the courts say fell under
"fair use". CNET
Article
I find this interesting in the States since reverse engineering here is not usually well accepted/protected legally." This seems like a small clearing in the creeping intellectual property tangle. Of course, that law suit probably wasn't any help to Bleem, despite the outcome. [Updated 3rd Oct 0:13 GMT by timothy] Thanks to the several readers who have pointed out by e-mail or in comments, as Kufat does, that "Bleem is not made by connectix. Connectix makes Virtual Game Station; Bleem is a competitor to VGS."
I find this interesting in the States since reverse engineering here is not usually well accepted/protected legally." This seems like a small clearing in the creeping intellectual property tangle. Of course, that law suit probably wasn't any help to Bleem, despite the outcome. [Updated 3rd Oct 0:13 GMT by timothy] Thanks to the several readers who have pointed out by e-mail or in comments, as Kufat does, that "Bleem is not made by connectix. Connectix makes Virtual Game Station; Bleem is a competitor to VGS."
Playstation 2 is due out shortly. Why would they still care?
PS2 is supposed to allow you to play PS games, also. They should have nothing to worry about...
-- "Microsoft can never die! They make the best damn joysticks around!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
personally, i expect the total cost is more than $150,000 in that respect.
(which is to say that, to me, that number does look little.)
Darth -- Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
You seem to have missed the point. The point is that it's stupid to have a law that allows you to reverse engineer for compatibility reasons as long as the original product doesn't encrypt its content (even with trivial encryption), but not allow reverse engineering of those who do, even for fair use purposes. That's why the law makes no sense.
Maybe Kaplan's ruling will help clear things up. Since he's basically saying that fair use is overridden by the DMCA clause prohibiting the circumvention of "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This will either wake people up to what's going on, and it will get fixed by Congress, or big corporations will rally behind the ruling and Congress will go cower in the corner, allowing the ruling to become permanent law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Denial of cert means the lower court decision stands, yes. However, it doesn't mean the Court agrees with the lower court's decision.
If the Court agrees with something, then the Court's opinion becomes the law of the land, from Washington DC to Guam and Puerto Rico. If the court disagrees with something, the Court's opinion applies over the same region. If the Court takes notice of anything, it affects the entire nation.
Appellate courts only affect regions of the country, not the country itself. The Court of Appeals which supported Connectix has defined caselaw, but only for that region.
If the Court agreed with the lower court, then the Connectix case would be caselaw for the entire country. Similarly if the court disagreed. Since the Court denied cert, that means the Court is saying "this isn't worth our limited time".
What often happens in matters such as these is that the Court will wait for another, similar case to be decided differently in another circuit. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decides a case one way, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decides a similar case another way, then that creates an inconsistency in how the law is applied. The Court will then step in and declare one of the two interpretations to be correct, thus removing the inconsistency.
Wait for another reverse-engineering suit to be filed in another circuit, and wait for it to be decided differently. Then the Court will grant cert, and we'll finally have definitive SCOTUS guidance on the reverse engineering issue.
Sony was sueing Connectix (which isn't Bleem) about the copying of the PlayStation BIOS, which is software (well, firmware if you want to be picky). The court said that copying as part of an effort to reverse engineer is lawful fair use.
Given the current state of the USPTO, I'd have to disagree with that.
;-)
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I'm going to play the whiny Linux zealot for a while. When, oh when, will we have a Playstation Emulator for Linux? Seriously though, does anyone know of any bleem!-style projects under way to emulate Playstation on Linux?
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
I think even thinking it up after the patent (and you never even heard of it) still falls under the patent.
MSK
This is one thing that always bothered me about the DeCSS case. The tack I would have taken would have been to address the meaning and interpretation of the word "effective".
This is what needs to be stressed when and if Digital Convergence ever files suit against anybody as well.
You can't just wave a magic wand (or XOR) operation over some allegedly secret material and claim "There, I have effectively protected it." It just doesn't stand up in the clear light of day. As with the CueCat device, the DVD protection scheme turned out to be not very effective at all, didn't it? In my mind the reknown 2600.com defense team adopted a flawed defensive posture by stressing the need for a Linux capable playback capability. They went about it the wrong way. By examining the term "effective" they would, IMHO, not only won the case but struck a blow at the evil DMCA itself.
If its okay to emulate a Playstation, and the Playstation 2 can play DVD's...
Last time I checked, fair use covered criticism and classroom use, not reverse engineering, which is what this is. But I guess times have changed. I'm not familiar with the "fair use doctrine" cited in the article. I mean, I look at the statutes I'm familiar with and I don't see the word doctrine anywhere :)
Mind you, they're not now using the Sony bios, right? So they should not be sued for using it today, which is the only thing fair use COULD cover - And it wouldn't. Or at least shouldn't. If Sony is going to sue them for anything, they should sue them for the arguably illegal (though stupidly so) reverse engineering.
I own a playstation. I do not own Bleem!. I don't own a mac, so VGS would do me no good regardless. I play my playstation games (all of which I've paid for, so far) on a real playstation because the experience is complete; Sure, Bleem! and VGS might have better graphics (Bleem! certainly does) but you just have to spend more money to use a dual shock controller, and my television (25") is bigger than my monitor (19").
So, I wasn't following the saga from day one, but if Connectix was distributing Sony BIOS with their systems at any point, they should be punished. If the only thing they ever used it for was reverse engineering, that's more or less protected and they didn't do anything wrong.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
First, Connectix VGS and Bleem are separate, but similar products.
Second, Sony is probably correct that it didn't cost much more than $150,000 to develop VGS. Even if it cost $1 million, this is 1/500th the cost that Sony had to develop the machine, which at the time was a very advanced machine.
Third, the reason Sony sued Connectix was that they purported that VGS was only developed because Connectix literally copied the BIOS from a Playstation (a little like copying ROMs for MAME). I do not know that factuality of that statement. It appears that Connectix went through some serious hurdles to make sure they had a comletely from scratch replacement, but that they may not have been as rigid in doing so as to avoid a lawsuit.
Sony brings up the financial issue partly to distract from the real issue, but partly to demonstrate how easily this supposed copyright infringement (as opposed to outright reverse engineering) assisted Connectix in becoming a Playstation competitor.
We should all be very grateful to the 9th District court and the Supremes on this one, since it looks like this will ultimately cause the MPAA a lot of trouble as they continue to litigate against DeCSS, DivX, and any other DVD players, decoders, etc, which are not sanctioned by their lackeys, er, members.
I do not have a signature
DeCSS allows people to both view/play and copy DVDs to different format.
I believe this is the crucial difference.
--
If we can reverse engineer stuff legally (take that, cuecat!), then can we reverse engineer One Click Shopping too? It seems like a pretty simple idea, and coming up with a clean room implementation wouldn't be that hard...
Posted from the wireless couch.
The cnet story is very poorly written, so I understand how it was interpretted by the original submittor, but Supreme Court ruling only confirmed the 9th Circuits ruling that SONY was not entitled to injunctive relief, therefor allowing the release of the Mac version of Virtual Game Station.
Here is today's ruling as report by the wire services. AP.
"The court, without comment Monday, let Connectix continue selling its Virtual Game Station until a lower court rules on Sony's claim of unfair competition."
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I wish companies would depend upon trade secrets. Then all they'd have to do is keep their employees under NDA and that'd be the end of the IP war zone. Companies realize however that their "secrets" are extremely obvious once they show their implementation and that's why patents and the DMCA exist.
As I tell the president of my company (and anyone else who'll listen) I'm all about protecting implementation, but trying to protect a process is just plain wrong!
They didn't distribute Sony's BIOS, they distrubuted their own bios. It just so happens that both Sony's bios and Connetix's are capabable of running Playstation video games. Reverse-engineering has been upheld as fair use for at least as long as we have had PC's
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
But the law says it IS legal to reverse engineer, as long as the team who inspected the code, algorithm, etc. etc. does not produce the reverse engineered work...
Having read the law, I'm at a loss to understand your comment. Paragraph (f) titled "reverse engineering" seems to explicitly say the opposite (when done for the purpose of functional interoperability):
Connectix's VGS emulator is not Bleem (made by Bleem Inc.). IIRC, Bleem didn't use the bios at all and Sony couldn't sue them over that.
It's a good thing that we are allowed to decompile things. It's such a good way to learn how things work. This right should never be taken away.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
If they actually get out of this without a major lawsuit on their ass then I'll be the first to cheer. Don't expect so, though...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Compaq made the first 100% compatible PC clones. There were three essential items that had to be reproduced to make a true clone:
1) The processor -- no problem, IBM used a standard, off the shelf Intel Chip
2) The OS -- no problem, IBM contracted MS-DOS, but neglected to acquire an *exclusive* contract with MS. Boy how it came back to bite them.
3) The BIOS, used for booting and low level disk access. This was IBM's proprietary chip, and thus a problem.
Compaq could buy the OS and processor, but not the BIOS. So, they reverse engineered it. Compaq brought in a team of engineers, handed them an IBM BIOS and told them "document every single thing this chip does". The engineers did their work and came up with a very thick document which provided a full functional description of the part. Compaq paid them, and sent them on their way. Then a second group was brought in, who had never met the first group and never seen the part. They were handed the functional description and told "build me a chip that does exactly this", and they did. Thus the Compaq BIOS was born.
With the BIOS they had all the parts they needed to build clones, and that they did. IBM took them to court, but the courts ruled that Compaq's implementation was built in a completely "clean room" fashion, and was thus perfectly legal. Woe to IBM. This, of course, threw the doors wide open and other clone makers started in. Soon, IBM lost the PC market to smaller, faster companies, and that brings us to today.
Ah...PC history. Historically, Compaq has been a rather important company (first clone, first portable PC clone, first 386-based PC). It's too bad their modern machines are so terrible.
--Lenny
Sadly, such a program would _still_ be acting as a circumventing device, and be illegal for as long as the boneheaded DMCA is law.
It doesn't matter what it does with the output, or how difficult it is to do stuff with the output - if it can get to the input, that's too bad.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm not an accountant or anything, but how does bleem cost $150,000 to produce? Here's the claim: "Sony says it spent three years and $500 million to develop PlayStation and now faces direct competition from a company that spent only $150,000 in development costs. The Connectix Virtual Game System lets personal computers run games designed for PlayStation" I would assume that sony would want to lie and make this number look little, not as big as it is.
Thank heavens for the Ninth Circuit.
sulli
RTFJ.
Anonymous Cowards, take note: Telling a moderator what to do is always the fastest way to (-1, Flamebait).
Um, uh.. Damn, I'll think of something after the hangover.
A_friggin_MEN!!!!!!! I am glad to see that I am not the only one who IMMEDIATELY saw the DeCSS implications. That was a complete mistrial IMHO. (DeCSS fiasco)
Lets see... It is OK to reverse engineer Sony's P2, BUT BAD!!! Norwegian hacker for reverse enigneering the completely corrupt, monopolistic bastards of the MPAA's CSS. Just shows you that the Judge truely was biased.
Greatoak.
Unless you are going to try to argue there was no innovation or content developed before the DMCA was passed. In which case I'd ask whether you worked for the MPAA, the RIAA, Microsoft, or just forgot to take your medication. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
DMCA covers devices that control access to copyrighted works (eg CSS). AFAIK, changing the delivery method is all good, as long as the new method also prevents copying.
--
Sheesh, I should hope that this trick isn't illegal. Otherwise one could argue that 20 years of IBM PC-combatible hegemony was all based on an illegal technology.
You can't copyright a method (algorithm), only an implementation of it. You can patent an algorithm (at least in the USA) but I don't think that algorithm is patented. You can also just keep it secret (as they tried to do) but that offers no protection if the secret leaks out (as the MPAA have discovered).
You're correct with that assumption that consoles don't drop off sharply in price because their vendors realize that they have a guaranteed customer (the PlayStation, after release, didn't get any less popular) and they can keep the prices high on their outdated components for longer than they ordinarily would.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
DMCA provides for devices that allow for interoperability, but outlaws devices that allow copyright infringement. Doesn't that mean that it matters what a program does with its output?
--
Yes, there's no copyright control device to be circumvented. That's why DMCA wasn't used as an argument, they were trying to argue something about the IP in the BIOS.
--
Having said that, I don't think that the clause you cite lets DeCSS off the hook. As I read it, it says that it would be legal to use DeCSS to develop a legal program, but DeCSS itself remains illegal. No, it doesn't make any sense... that's why it's a bad law.
MSK
I always thought that it was illegal to reverse engineer in a "dirty" manner, but that "clean" reverse engineering was not explicitly declared legal. (After all, in the absence of any other laws, you would assume that clean reverse engineering is legal, right?)
MSK
They already tried to sue makers of modchips. The case was dismissed if I recall correctly. Basically, the courts said that once a person bought the hardware, it was theirs to do with as they will. If they want to take it apart and soldier a mod chip in, it was their right. Just don't come crying to Sony if you fry it. A very sane and reasonable descision, of course this was before DMCA.
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Amazon's one-click shopping is protected by patent, not copyright, so there is no issue of fair use. As part of the patent, Amazon detailed how to implement one-click shopping, so there would really be no point in trying to reverse engineer it anyway....
No. Under American law, absent a special statutory provision or really, really abusive conduct (e.g., suing someone for something which is absolutely and completely fictional) a defendant can't sue to recover attorneys' fees from a losing plaintiff.
Ok...
True or false?
A version of DeCSS with encryption would be legal
Since the Supreme Court is refusing to hear the case, they're not doing the one important thing the Supreme Court does:
Setting a precident
Without a precident there's no reason a company won't do this again in another case with the same circumstances.
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Here's my take on it... reverse engineering is perfectly legal, if done right. Releasing public documents that completely describe the protocol is fine. Using the knowledge of the protocol to write a program that circumvents copy protection: bad. Even if it's trivial to go from {description of protocol} to {program that copy unprotects}, it's still illegal to do.
--
AFAIK Sony and other console companies do indeed make money off the actual console, and the retailers don't. While working at a retailer I checked the mark-ups on Playstations and their games and it seems that sony'd make more money off the part they sold us for $150-ish and we marked up 1% than for the part they sold us for $25 and we marked up 50%. Naturally more cash does come through game sales, but I'm sure they don't lose money on the actual console.
-= I can't think of anything witty, creative, or insightful for my sig, so deal with this. =-
This is something which arises so frequently that it's become a major annoyance to the Court. The Court will deny cert ("deny cert" == "refuse to hear arguments") on a case, and presto, the popular press and most of America thinks that means anything.
It means nothing.
Denying cert only means the Court won't hear arguments. It doesn't mean the Court thinks the legal reasoning is correct; it doesn't mean the Court is approving the lower court's decision; it doesn't mean anything .
Many cases are denied cert because their legal issues are not as clear as the Court would like ("bad cases make for bad law", as the axiom goes), or the Court wants to give it a few years to let legal scholarship tackle the issues, or the Court thinks this is an issue which Congress will soon issue "direction" (read: legislation) on, or... any of dozens of reasons.
It is tremendously unwise to think that the Court's denial of cert means anything, no matter what the Court says in their response.
Don't get happy; the Court hasn't done anything for us.
AFAIK, a program that read in a DVD and produced an MPEG that had SCMS (serial copy management system) on it, such that it couldn't be recopied... that would be legal.
--
A better question is: Other than the DMCA -- which has a narrow though not insignificant scope -- what makes you think that reverse engineering is not legally protected in the States?
The facts of this may be true, but the reasoning is totally bogus. The law, rightly or wrongly, protects investment in technology (patents) content (copyrights). It does not protect successful platforms from competition.
The PlayStation's (still) enormous value as an asset derives only from its success and wide adoption, which guarantees that you will find games to buy for it and other users to talk about it. This is the same reason Windows is valuable.
The PlayStation's value does not derive from any technology, since that is now old hat. Perhaps if Connectix had created another cheap hardware console it could be alleged that they copied something that allows very cheap manufacturing or some such. But Connectix used a straightforward implementation on desktop hardware, so there can be no such issue.
So, one could be sorry for Sony that they now have competition, but legally they have no leg to stand on. There is no legal barrier to emulating a succesful platform, and that is a good thing, even as it allows the later players to "free ride" on the pioneer's success.
Pavlos
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I have not even read the facts of the case.
This article seemed extreamely biased to me. Although the writter did not come straight out and say that VGS is bad, it was diffenately along the lines that Sony said this and Sony said that. Basically, there are several things that the article failed to take into consideration.
The main thing is that VGS and Bleem are used by an extreamely small share of the market. Playstation is not going to be phased out by Bleem or VGS. Bleem is extreamely buggy, and its compatability low. Trust me, I have it. VGS has a much higher compatability, but does not offer enhanced graphics and stuff. And frankly, who wants to play on your 15 inch monitor when you got a 36 inch TV in the living room for the Playstation? Actually, I do. But I am the exception, not the rule. I bought Bleem just to play Gran Turismo and Spyro. These companies are not digging into Sony's profits in anyway that is probobly hurting Sony.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if what I'm saying will hold any water, but... Could it be that the reason the court found in favor of Connectix was that they did not violate the patent? The patent held by Sony may be entirely hardware. If Connectix can discover what the hardware does and create a software-based system to operate the same way, then Connectix has created an innovative and unique product, thus free from copyright violation. It all depends on what Sony actually claims it owns. Connectix does not provide a system for reverse engineering/pirating the games themselves (last I checked); they simply provide an alternate medium for legal use of the games.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines - Unknown
I find the last statement odd, reverse engineering is a time honored tradition that goes back a long way. Remember all the early "non-ibm" BIOSes were reverse engineered. The hoops that manufacturers went through to insure the integrity of the reverse engineering were pretty intense. For a long time reverse engineering for the BIOS was done as follows.
- team 1 of engineers inspects pokes and generally fiddles with a known BIOS, and then writes a report on what a BIOS should do based on what they discovered the BIOS that they were fooling with did.
- team 2 of engineers who have 0 contact with team 1 then use said report to design a new bios without ever seeing the source code or the other bios in action.
I think in most states laws were passed or clarified in Court so that the procedure became greatly streamlined. This allowed a lot of smaller players to get into business and do some reverse engineering WITHOUT needing to pay 2 separate teams of engineers. The problem had been some recent bad legislation that seems to contradict time honored reverse engineering/fair use laws.The other problem is our patent system. I think this is a small victory, the real challenge lays ahead. That challenge is deciding what can and cannot be patented.
Too bad that it had to drag on for so long before a decision was rendered. If your pockets are deep enough you can sue, even if your wrong. The technological window time wise is so small that any chance your competition had is gone before the litigation is finished.
I wonder what this means for Cue cat?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Here's the "real" story : ;-)
They got the code, not by reverse engineering, but through the illuminati (they know everything, ya know)...
The courts jumped in, but since the illuminati move everything with their 'invisible hand', and have such immense power, they forced the courts to concede. And the courts did.
To further prove my theory, this post should get moderated down to -1 soon after I post it, so those that actually see if will know the truth!
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!
-- "Microsoft can never die! They make the best damn joysticks around!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
To be only legal when big companies do it. But not when individuals do it. Well I hope that the cue:cat hackers get thier day in court and win.
Connectix reverse engineered the Playstation for the purpose of allowing Playstation games to interoperate with an IBM-PC. This is fully covered under the DMCA. Nothing has changed.
--
The DMCA is not about circumventing a copyrighted protection method. The copyright status of the method is irrelevant to the DMCA. THe DMCA is about circumventing a protection method that protects a copyrighted work. The relevant copyright is on the protected work, not the protection method. This is an important distinction. Also, you can violate the DMCA without infringing copyright, as they are two seperate charges. "Fair use" will get you off on a infringement charge, but not on a DMCA charge. Judge Kaplan's ruling set that precedent, unfortunately. (Just ask the DeCSS defendants who have been ordered to not deal in DeCSS, and to pay the court for the procedings against them.)
The DMCA states: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Check out the relevant section of the DMCA for yourself: 17 USC 1201
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Right...so you patent an unspecified device that implements the algorithm. This patents the algorith for all practical purposes, as it prevents anyone else from creating a device that implements the algorithm without your permission. This would also preclude writing software which causes a computer to implement the algorithm.
I think it is a political / money issue. Where is Sony and the Connectix? sony is based out of japan, is Connectix us based? hmm.
I also wonder who is shelling out more money here?
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
For the product.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Okay...Isn't there a clear difference between patent infringement and reverse engineering. To revers engineer all parties involved have to be CLEAN...meaning they have never seen any of the patent protected code. This is the part that the DeCSS people have to show as a defense. That they in no way used the patents or code they covered to break the DSS encryption. If everything is clean then the court is going to give you 1st Amendment protection. What you cannot do is use the patent protected products to learn how they work and break the encryption they use. Example... In my new SuperCool Widget Program you know that if the CD data contains: MHBJ GQ ALLI and this is displayed as: NICK IS COOL Then if you can figure out the coding scheme all is OKAY. But, if you have any access to the code then you are in violation of any patent I have. In other words, as long as the DeCSS guys NEVER EVER looked at inside of the DVD players then all should be COOL! Remember that unless you are using an IBM you are probably using a reverse engineered BIOS (never looked but I presume this ThinkPad probably has a RE'd BIOS). IBM tried to prevent this by publishing the source code to their BIOS...thereby reducing the number of available CLEAN engineers. Luckily some were found who were smart and had NEVER seen the code. If any of this is wrong then feel free to correct me...I'm just an idiot who likes to type. oh, yeah...the Supreme Court didn't rule on anything. They just declined to decide the case until all issues relating to unfair competition were decided by lower courts. They prefer to rule on complete cases, rather then bits and pieces.
--- Open Source = Freedom not free.
Remember way back when there were no IBM clones?
If i am not mistaken, Phoenix was the one that
reverse engineered IBM's bios and made their own,
thus allowing us to use IBM clones.
Also remember the court case that followed, it
was even back then turned over. One of the very
first cases involving intellectual property, of
this nature.
There is a difference between interacting with a program to understand how it works (or writing a second program to interface with it) and just dumping the binary to look at the machine code.
Almost certainly the latter is illegal, which I believe is what you are talking about.
If you can look at the machine code and make use of it in your own program, just look at ALL the machine code and you can copy ALL of their software! That can't be right.
I think this was supposed to be marked (+2, Funny), but whatever :-P
if someone guesses coca-cola's formula, and duplicates it exact,...
William Poundstone's "Big Secrets" book (ISBN: 0688048307) has the Coca-Cola (tm) formula, reverse engineered. Lot of good that will do you. Want to sell franchises, on the basis of just your formula, to others to open up bottling plants all over the world?
Since its a trade secret not a patent that means someone can market the soda as a cokelike-copy right?
Well, no, not exactly. You can market the same formula but you would not be wise to call it by any name that might confuse people who wish to buy the trademarked beverage.
Since it's a trade secret, supposedly locked up in a safe with access only by a few people, the formula is safe--even if a formula is published, who's to know if it's really the right one?
Reverse engineering is not theft--it is a normal engineering practice with a long, honorable history. Of course, some companies howl when others perform successful reverse engineering and figure out how their products are made--and where the weaknesses are--but then those same companies do the same thing to any competitor anyway. I think instead of calling it by a jargon word, we ought to see it as legitimate competition, exactly what we need instead of monopolies to promote progress.
A society which encourages reverse engineering - fosters resourcefulness - which then leads to innovation. Whether it is a person who figured out how to use panty hose to reduce glare on a CRT, an inventor who used off the shelf components, or a techie who hacked code to use hardware in a previously unperceived manner... its all about creating an innovative working class, which has the ability to move into the elite class. Don't be blind, my friends. Don't be blind to your slavery. You are part of the working class, and a part of the upper class takes advantage of you. They do not want you to learn how to be inventive, creative, and non-conforming, because you might knock them out of power. They want you to be a drone. We are tricked to think that we are creative and special, when, in reality, we are being sapped of our time and effort as we are brainwashed to become a good consumer/worker/slave. We are led to believe that corporations have rights. We are led to believe that we have a say in the formation of our government. We are led to believe that nothing is wrong. http://www.votenader.org
The legal point of view:
The DMCA forbids the "circumvention of technical measures." The DVD-case was all about DeCSS, a "technology primarily designed or produced for the circumvention of protection afforded by a technological measure." (Sec. 1201 of the US Code)
Judge Kaplan decided in the DVD-case that fair use is not relevant in the DMCA. Ergo: IF Sony had used some kind of crappy protection, THEN reverse engineering would be in breach of the DMCA (if it had been enacted).
nen
No, it does remain unspecified. The algorithm is described in great detail, but the device is usually pretty general. The actual description of the device might be "A device consisting of an electronic microprocessor, a mass storage unit, and volatile electronic memory" or something like that. I've seen such patent applications. They describe the device so vaguely that ANY computer which implements the very detailed algorithm will violate the patent. That's the point.
Screw that, I want Bleem for PS2! The fact that PS2 doesn't do hardware anti-aliasing really pisses me off.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
The district court in the DeCSS said that it does not matter if the anti-circumvention provisions prevent fair use. The judge claimed that that must have been the way Congress intended it to be. Of course, this nonsense should be reversed, but that won't directly follow from the Connectix case.
this is what the courts are trying to determine, and why sony is very happy with this outcome. Bleem and vgs probably do not cost sony much at all. i have a very fast computer, but play games on a playstation just for the controllers. sorry, microsoft, but the sidewinder xxiii3v just doesn't do it for me. also, how many people are going to spend $150 on new computer equipment plus several hours to avoid buying a playstation?
anyway, this is the best outcome for sony, and by extension, the entire entertainment industry. basically, one of the two ideas expressed in jayfoo2's post should be correct, and evetually, one of them will be. but for now, sony wants to keep it as ambiguous as possible, so they can have their cake and eat it too. as long as the laws aren't clear, they can sue anyone even remotely involved and be able to twist the laws to suit what they try to say. when the laws get cleared up, sony will be stuck with one or the other.
Hmm,
but considering how poor the security method was for CSS, can it really be called 'effectively' controling access.
(yes I do know that it's the other meaning of effectively, just being a wiseass)
So all the need to do is say it contains some encryption routine, implement their XOR 0xFF encryption or something similar, use it in their new games and consoles, and presto, reverse-engineering it is now illegal in at least one jurisdiction. Law is strange, isn't it?
Thank goodness I'm not a lawyer, I couldn't force myself to deal with such illogical laws on a day to day basis, I'd go nuts.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
A better analogy would be disassembling your own copy of Photoshop. But ask a lawyer first.
If true, then how about a completely legal DeCSS that converts the DVD into a format encrypted by something truly difficult to crack, such as rot13?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Still wouldn't work. Some for profit company needs to release an unauthorized DVD player for Windows (a "respectable *cough*, corporate" OS) which uses reverse-engineered CSS decryption, but which respects region codes, disallows copying, and enforces al the other restrictions of an MPAA/DVDCCA approved player. And charge $39.95 or more for it. THEY might have a better chance at winning. The MPAA/DVDCCA then, and only then, couldn't play the "hacker" angle. And the company might have a chance with a "restraint of trade" lawsuit. Since they could say they were trying to be a "legitamate" business doing "legitimate" things, and not "hackers" "breaking" people's systems. They'd probably still lose, since the MPAA/DVDCCA not only has more money but more legal clout with the judicial branch. Ugh, I can't stand the legal hypocracy.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If you patent it, it is no longer unspecified.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The difference is the DMCA. It does not apply in the PlayStation case, it does apply in the DeCSS case. The MPAA case against DeCSS has nothing to do with reverse-engineering, and everything to do with DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. You may be thinking of the DVD-CCA case against DeCSS which was trade-secret related, and at least marginally relevant here.
But doesn't a denial of cert mean that the decision of the lower court stands?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
While not quite the ideal outcome, we can definitely chalk one up for The Good Guys here.
The ideal outcome for this would have been for the SC to hear the case and explicitly rule in Connectix's favor; that would make things a lot less ambiguous. But this is certainly much better than nothing at all (or worse, a ruling in Sony's favor).
Now, the inevitable question: how can this best be applied to DeCSS and the DMCA?
----------
"Of course, that law suit probably wasn't any help to Bleem, despite the outcome". That is not totally true. Connectix/ Bleem can probably sue for damages caused by the suit, and most likely get their attorneys fee back. Second this is excellent news for the upcoming Bleem for DreamCast allowing us to play PS1 games andwith better graphics to boot. The DC Bleem keeps on slipping though. I think latest is early Nov.
Help fight continental drift.
INTERACTIVE
great comedy company.
This is a good thing. Does anyone else realize that this is one more precendent being set for the impending :CueCat case? Ha! I'd like to see them try! :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Now I'm not a lawyer, or even all that bright, but doesn't this ruling have serious implications for other 'products' that are created as a result of reverse engineering.
So my small brain spits out two theorys, anyone know which is (more) correct.
Theory 1.
It's the content that is copyrighted, not the delivery method, thus copying the content would be illegal, but changing the delivery method (i.e. DeCSS) is all good.
Theory 2
Hold on there sparky, this has nothing to do with DeCSS or anything else because the motion picture industry has declared the method itself copyrighted. Sony just missed that trick.
Anyone?
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Connectix makes Virtual Game Station, and Bleem is made by, well, Bleem! Check your facts, guys :)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The 9th Circuit said Connectix's activities were protected under the ''fair use doctrine,'' which permits copying of software when necessary to understand the way a program works.
So, if I'm a assembler programmer and I just can't at all figure out how Photoshop is performing matrix multiplication on the pixels of an image, I can copy Photoshop legally from my buddy with the install disks and peek at the bytecode to figure out the algorithms? Is that right?
I mean, that would make sense to you and me and the rest of Slashdot's readers, but that makes sense to the lawyers that wrote the fair use laws?
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
Well, that takes degeneracy to a whole new level. Thats right up there with goatsex. I had my clean monitor to view it through, and still found it utterly sickening. I shudder to imagine what it would be like to happen upon a situation like that in person.
One thing I don't think people are realizing is the formula behind thiese, seemingly-unsimilar judgements. It's quite simple really: If you are company [Bleem! / AMD / Microsoft / etc.] who is making money off of reverse engineering another product everything is okay. If you don't make money off of it, cances are you will loose the case [DeCSS / Napster / etc] But if you take something that was free, and turn it into something profitable, you get pats on the back [Microsoft J++ / Linux Real-Time OS / etc] If you take a look at the trials on the subjet, you will see it almost always holds true, not just in the examples cited here. I don't think I need to tell you the sad / sick nature of this double standard.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I agree, without reverse engineering there would not have been PC Clones, or a WINE for Linux.
You have two teams, a dirty one that reverse engineers the BIOS, and a clean one that never saw the BIOS code, but programs a new BIOS to the same APIs that are listed by the dirty team. The result is a Playstation Clone BIOS.
BTW why isn't Sony suing those Mod/Stealth chip makers instead of the PSX Emulator companies? The Mod/Stealth chip makers allow a PSX to run pirated (copy protection broken, or a CDR copy) or games from Japan, etc.
BTW has Sony even tried to sue that group that made the freeware PSXEMU emulator? Or just the commercial ones?
http://www.psxemu.com/psemu.htm
...though it's entirely possible. It would involve the software developers at Bleem! or Connectix to get off their duffs and convert the executable to Win32; as they stand right now, they will only execute in Windows 9x. I didn't filch the Volume 10 Sony demo disk for nothing!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I've posted this in reply to another comment here, but that's just going to get buried, and everyone else here seems to be making the same mistake. IANAL.
The Connectix case was about traditional copyright law. Sony said, "Reverse engineering is illegal!" Various judges said, "No, reverse engineering is not illegal."
The DeCSS case is about the DMCA. The MPAA is saying, "Reverse engineering a copyright protection mechanism is illegal!" It remains to be seen what the judges will say to that, but the DMCA seems to be on the MPAA's side.*
Let's try some basic logic here.
"It is not always illegal to reverse engineer."
"It is illegal to reverse engineer a copyright protection system."
Those two statements do not contradict eachother. Consider:
"It is not always illegal to swing a baseball bat."
"It is illegal to swing a baseball bat at someone's head."
Does that help? I'm sorry if this is not the most articulate explanation, but people constantly misunderstand legal issues due to a poor grasp of simple logic. I can't think of a better way to explain it, so I have to settle for speaking slowly and using small words.
* I know, there's a lot of room for argument here, but it's still a very different situation.
MSK
I wonder what affect, if any, it will have on the DeCSS case?
What we really need is a free (beer and speech) development environment for the newer console systems.
----
I'm sure Sony makes plenty of money now. They won't make any money on the first few shipments of the Playstation 2, but don't forget, Console systems get cheaper with time just like PCs do (economies of scale). It's just, the prices don't drop off as sharply with the consoles as they do with PCs. The PC manufacturers have to sell their equipment just above cost, otherwise they won't survive long in the market. That's competition, and that's good. Console systems are mini-monopolies in a lot of ways and can price gouge all they want.
It is only a recent trend where reverse engineering has been given a bad name (DeCSS). More specifically, when someone over at Connectix makes a playstation 2 BIOS, its okay. Yet, when someone over in Norway figures out who DVD players work it's piracy. The distinction between the two is Connectix is a for profit company, while distributers of DeCSS are Hackers. As well all know, what is good for a company is good for America and Hackers (like those evil 2600 kids) are out to destroy the nation.
So logically, what needs to be done is some "Hackers" need to start a for profit company to sell DVD players for Linux (at .$50 a download) and see what happens.
Burn Hollywood Burn
As a matter of fact, I remeber seeing some online store that had black cd-r's and advertised them as "good for copying playstation games." So there.
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Since the high court threw out this decision, saying reverse engineering is covered by fair use, does this give any value to those playing with their :CueCats? I know some people have gotten flak from DC for reverse engineering, I'm just curious
To write a haiku - all you need is the correct - number of syli...
Does this mean I could reverse engineer DVD encoding and get away with it. More than likely not, but it would piss off the MPAA so it might be worth it.
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
I think that this, plus the Betamax case, should be strong enough to make the DeCSS case go the right way on appeals. Heck, the PS case was under the shadow of the DMCA as well.
While ambious, I really hope that the DeCSS is the one that is pushed all the way to the SC to kill the DMCA bill, or at least provisions that trend on fair use. The 'success' of this case shows that the legal background is there.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Thank God, now if only the MPAA and DeCSS suffer a similar fate.
And FYI, Conntectix does NOT make Bleem. VGS was originally created as a Playstation emulator for Macintosh machines. Bleem was made by, well, Bleem, Inc. for PCs, although they did port it to Dreamcast.
I purchased a copy of Bleem a few months back. I have to say, it is a nice product, for some games. It has been ages since they updated it, and I've still got one game I specifically bought Bleem for that doesn't quite run right in it. The Dreamcast port is nice, but I wish it wasn't at the expensive of supporting the PC version.