Slashdot Mirror
Sony Crushes UK PS2 Mod Chip Developers
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. "
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:
This paragraph was passed specifically to reject copyright owners' "Copying the program into RAM is infringing; therefore, EULAs are binding" argument.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This modchip claims to circumvent the DVD region code.
Modchips and Homebrew will never die, this is just a minor setback.
-motardo
It's not because these companies have a pathological hatred of software developers or are control freaks. It's simply about money.
Recently, Tesco, a UK retailer, lost a case in the European Court about importing "grey market" jeans - it's just the same. The jean manufacturers want to control the supply of products in Europe so they can control the price.
The suppliers - and lets face it there are only three big game machine makers - charge different prices for their games in different markets. Europeans and East Asians pay more than Americans.
Allowing Europeans to buy cheaper games and DVDs from abroad will depress profits.
Those who complain should face facts - they are arguing for a restriction on the 'rights' of capital. This is not freeing capitalism, it is controlling it by forcing capitalists to offer better services at the expoense of reduced profits.
And it's about time...
That seems to me like trying to outlaw a broadband connection on the grounds that it *could* be used for downloading pirated software. Or, hell...banning anything that may enable piracy: cd burners, hiew (and windasm, and softice, and whatever other software the kids these days use), hard drives, computers, blah blah blah. Just because it *can* be used for piracy, doesn't mean it will be. Seems to me that right now the cost of dvd burners and media is too prohibitive to make it worthwhile to be pirating ps2 games. And if the original intent of the modchip is stated to be for playing import games and one's own personal backups, how can the court tell me "we know you'll use it for illegal purposes, so you can't have it"? Sounds kinda unfair to me.
do not read this line twice.
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.
I know of at least 1 game that came from teh Yaroze project. It was called "Devil Dice". Whether or not any more came from it I don't know.
...).
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
THe whole reason for this is to prevent free trade.
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.
Obviously you don't have kids. If you had, you'd be all for backups. Yes, all my Final Fantasy Discs are in mint condition. Yes, all my classical CDs are in mint condition. However, looking at the kids CDs and kids discs, they're all pretty beat up.
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.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
That is so true. My daughter is just over 2 years old, and has already managed to snap one CD in two.
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
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I'm not sure the exact wording, but under the consumer guarantee act, DVD players in New Zealand must be able to be "de-region locked" - it is contsidered a restraint of trade otherwise. Parallel importing is also explicitly allowed, for the same reason.
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).
Got this from Gary (aka Gazza) before ruling:
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)
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.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Dreamcast remains the only game console that people can develop home-brew games for. Between Kallisti!OS and the various attempts to create a Linux boot system for Linux-based games there's going to be one hell of a platform on the way for developers. The Dreamcast is also the most documented of the game consoles, with developer information on almost every subsystem in the box. Too bad SEGA discontinued production on the damn thing...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
There are ModChips that will *only* play imports. I'm not sure on how the PS2 has upgraded things, but the PSX/one had two things gumming the works.
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.
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
Rats would be more funny if they could fart.
the PS1 demoscene has produced some demos though, i'm not sure how many. I'm not sure if any homebrew games were developed.
:)
Anyway, my flatmate and i did a PSX2 demo (FunSlower) a couple of months back and we're working on a small 2 player game. (When the games are too expensive, make your own
But it does seem that it's troublesome to develop for PSX2, or atleast people think so. Not much is going on.
If you're interested in PSX2 development i recommend you visit Duke's page: http://duke.napalm-x.com/
- gibson / soopadoopa
See this web page explaining why 17 USC 117 does not protect you in all jurisdictions.
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?)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"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
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!