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. "
So why is PS2 letting us fiddle with Linux based PS2's if no one is allowed to modify the normal PS2? Who is it hurting if I purchase one extra game from overseas and play it with a mod chip attached to my US PS2? Oh that's right, it makes baby DMCA cry.
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?
Why can't I legally play an imported PS2 game (which I probably paid a goodly premium for) on a modded PS2? I've voided my warranty if I mod the PS2, Sony still gets their money from the original software sale, the reseller gets their money from the sale to me, and I get to try to decipher the hirigana and kanjii in a vain attempt to understand just what the heck it is I've bought. Seems like everyone gets what they want in this circumstance.
Now, modding my PS2 to play CD-R games is a bit of a different matter. Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
That's right, Sony... alienate those customers of yours who are most enthusiastic about your product... that'll make you irrelevant faster than anything else.
Yeah, now they're gonna lose all those masses of people who want to write their own games and all those valuable customers who just want to pirate games!!! How are they going to make profit on selling those hardware boxes now!?!?
This modchip claims to circumvent the DVD region code.
This actually sounds quite bad for importing DVDs. It states that imported PS2 games are illegal to play in the UK. It claims this as it makes an unauthorised copy of the game in memory. I'm sure that if you really wanted this could be stretched to include DVDs (as the article says). As IANAL, I am wondering if this ruling could be taken as legal precedent? Hopefully this bit can be overturned soon.
Another thing I'm wondering about it copying data to memory can be considered "illegal copying". If this is the case for imported games, I do not see how this would make it "not illegal" (for lack of a better phrase) to load PS2 games of your home region (as it is still copying). As "copying" is an integral function of all consoles, I'm wondering what unexpected side-effects there will be. I think the whole thing is a minefield, and the sooner we get a knowledgable expert posting here the better. The whole thing about licensing only for a certain region bothers me - I really can't see why we're not allowed to play import games (or DVDs). OK, its their technology, but still there is "fair use". Hopefully the EU can check into this as well when it's doing its investigation of the legality of DVD regions.
It's a typical judgement for the UK courts to rule to the absolute letter in cases such as this. Problem is, the judges don't appear to have a firm grasp of the implications caused by these rulings. Most law has always been one step behind technology, but the problem we have now is that tech is a truly global market.
Marketing suits have been trying for years to stifle shopping internationally, in case people begin to realise that their countries are being screwed in comparison to others. This case affects games importing (because we aren't allowed to buy what we want say the suits) but DVDs as well (because it would absolutely *crush* the movie sector, say the suits) and anything else the marketing guys want to stifle. It's not like dealing contraband, it's off-the-shelf products.
My worry is that this trend will continue, even though it, in some cases, directly contravenes law. Here in the UK, our car prices are drastically higher than on the continent, and certain car manufacturers make it very difficult to buy your car abroad. This is despite the face the EU trade laws explicitely say otherwise. If companies are flauting the *law*, how exactly can we stop them?
Sony still gets their money from the original software sale
Sony of Japan Inc does. Sony of America Inc doesn't.
Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
Stripping away the movies helps shrink most games down to under 700 MB.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If I buy a PS2 game (or CD, DVD, whatever), and it is illegal for me to make a backup copy, shouldn't I be allowed to get the disc replaced for free if/when it becomes scratched to the point of being unusable?
After all, if I buy a license for a piece of software, I retain the rights use that software for an unlimited amount of time.
According to this link, Australia is moving in the opposite direction. No, it isn't about mod chips -- it is about the legality of region encoding DVDs. This would have interesting implications as legislators were talking about "zoned" DVD players being illegal. I don't know how it turned out.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"...a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized..."
While I understand the intention behind this statement, isn't it flawed? This statement is given to explain why software licensed in one area is illegal when run in another.
IANAL, but as I see it the truth is this: The license agreement is a (supposedly) legally-binding contract that defines the conditions by which you use the material you've bought. If the license says you can only use it between noon and 3pm then that's what you should, in theory, do. So if a license says "This software is licensed for use in the UK only" then that's the only place the software is legal. Whether we like it or not, that's the law.
The judge's statement tries to find some alternative justification for what should just be a black-and-white case - the law says it's illegal to cross-region, end of story. What Jacob says implies that a non-permanent, volatile copy of data used solely during the active "life" of a media's playback is subject to copyright.
So - as an example - the "copy" of a CD's audio content as it passes from the disc to the speakers by means of decoding and amplification circuitry. Is that a copy of the music? It's as permanent as the data stored in RAM during the execution of software and is no more useful. You can't duplicate the game from the content of the PS's RAM; you'd be lucky to reconstruct all the data & program files from what passes through memory during an execution.
The law says it's wrong. Whether it's to our liking or not, it's black-and-white, as defined in the license. So why try to justify the decision in this way?
There are further-reaching consequences of this ruling, including those applying to other electronic media, that should be considered. The ruling may be right, but the wording is still important.
Stop, stop, stop. While I believe there are people who legitimately want to play Japanese games and backups using their mod chips, this isn't what the overwhelming majority of people intend to do with it. The real reason these devices are popular is because people want to play some mediocre game, but don't want to shell out $50 for it. Considering that Sony DOES make a profit on the console, mod chips are a great way to keep pumping the numbers of PS2s out there. MS has already tipped their hand with the HomeStation. It's not about games anymore, it's about whose hardware is in the most homes. If successful, they could end up driving PS2 sales down.
Hmmm strange that this happens in the UK.
I could imagine that an american court ruled like this.
Why? Well here in Europe the majority of software/hardware producers go by the good spirit of "If you buy it's yours, if you modify/brake it it's your problem"
What is a PS/2 good for if can't modify it to my needs?
If enough people think like this Sony just cut it's own flesh...
Well, I suppose there's not much of a point in awarding high damages if that's more than the defendant can possibly pay.
"Information wants to be paid"
I can't read minds. This to me looks like the Judge actually favours the rights of end consumers to use purchased goods any way they like. Granted the judgement in this case goes the other way, but the judge is hampered by existing laws and must rule as they say. This is an overly strict reading of the laws and most of us are cringing. I think that is what the judge wanted.
It looks like a T-ball setup for a great public outcry and movement to get the politicians off their buts and give back some rights to end users. Or maybe just a great appeal case to go up the judiciary path. The quicker this judge makes his ruling the quicker it gets up the appeal path.
I plan on moving a few times in the next few years (not just different cities, different continents) and I was thinking about this whole DVD/game console mess. Without mod chips it's impractical to invest in these devices.
What's the official line on this? Am I supposed to buy a new console for each continent?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
it's funny how we have laws that provide for fair use and allow us to make back-up copies of software, CD's, DVD's, etc. but when it comes down to the courts actually upholding our right to do so, they typically fall towards the company that creates technology to prevent us from using these backups.
"yes, you have the right to make backups of Playstation games, but no, you do not have the right to play them since Sony has technology to prevent you from doing so."
seems like there really isn't any fair use anymore.
i'm wondering if i could purchase a Playstation CD and return it to the company that made it for a replacement in the event that it got scratched/damaged. has anyone done this? i mean, they say they don't want to let us make copies, but i should only have to pay for the game once. i'd be more than happy to pay for the replacement media and shipping. i'm just betting that they'd charge me $45 for a $50 game. now, what does that tell about how much the actual game is worth?
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.
keeping people from playing games, it's about keeping people from illegally pirating games. True, many people in the Slashdot community have the respect for the artists and companies involved in video game production to pay for the games they play, and curcumvention devices such as mod chips are used as GOD intended, to view the work in it's original Japenes, etc.
Unfortunately, illegal copyiers force companies like SONY to take these steps to protect the profits of their company and the artisits that produce games. I am unahppy that this action was necassary, but untill the piracy stops SONY and others will take steps like this to keep it to a minimum.
Just my 2 cents.
'Customers' who pirate games aren't really customers, and I doubt Sony give a flying frogstar fart about alienating THEM.
The main reason anyone ever fits a mod-chip is so they can pirate games. And all consoles follow the Gillette model. Sell them the razors, and they'll buy the blades from you for years to come.
"Information wants to be paid"
So why would you buy it in Japan? Because the game is:
A) Not availible at all in America
B) It won't be availible in America for ages, but you're willing to pay for the privilidge of playing it early.
C) You happened to *be* in Japan when buying it (I got a bunch of DVDs I can't play on any Region 1 DVD player if I decide to go a year to America.
D) The local version is a cripple (As was/is often the case with DVDs, with bad format (two sides), no extras etc.)
E) Artifical pricing - actually very rare case to make up for shipping and customs, trouble with returns/replacements and so on.
A) - No loss whatsoever
B) - They could sell it to you for a premium, they just don't.
C) - Pisses off those it concerns, for no return, I still won't buy them twice.
D) - Pure incompetence, we need competitive protection from our other divisions.
E) - Wow they might actually lose some money.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Suppressing competition to control price? Sounds to me like a monopolistic practice. (yeah, I know...that word gets thrown around waaaaaay too much on slashdot). Anybody know what kinds of laws EU has on monopolies, and if any case can be made the they're only doing what they're doing to artificially inflate prices by controlling supply?
do not read this line twice.
That you dont actually need a modchip to play imports, but it does make it a little nicer. Plus the code and schematics are readily available on the internet for those people who are technically inclined.
This wont effect Homebrew software since they are still going to make the Linux Kit available. Even though it is going to cost an arm and a leg.
So really the only people this effects are the people profiting from the sale of the modchips.
They'd better make pencils and paper illegal...I might write down copyrighted material with them, and piracy is the main factor for consideration above all other, right?
from the website: 'Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the licensed territory, this argument should be upheld.' Ok, so now I am not allowed to leave where I live and play my games where I travel to? I don't understand this. Maybe I am just being dense, but could someone please show me where it says you aren't allowed to move somewhere and play your game? Also, how big are these territories he's talking about? Anyone? Bueler?
Sent from your iPad.
This also wipes out any chances of seeing home brewed software on the Playstation 2 anytime soon, as well.
PS1 has the largest installed userbase of any console in the world, besides game boy.
Mod chips for the PS1 cost almost nothing, are widely available, and are installed in many units.
The Yaroze was released in the US by Sony- essentially a PS1SDK.
There are countless emulators for the PS1, allowing you to play burned and/or copied software on your computer
Despite all this, I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew PS1 game, ever. Has anyone else?
Actually, I live in the US, and I speak Japanese, and enjoy Japanese games. I modded my PS1, and I have many foreign games, but no pirated ones. Not because I'm particularly moral, just that none of the games my friends have pirated really appeal to me. So some of us really do just want to avoid region-coding. Now if there was a way to do this without allowing piracy, do you think Sony would allow it? IMO, probably not.
1. Back-ups of games that you currently own. Especially if you have kids this should be a neccesity.
2. While not legal changing the region of your DVD to play foriegn movies should be.
3. Playing Japanese and other language imports. Alternately taking a German or French system and allowing it to play american games. (note, this is what me and the roommates modded our PS1 for. You cannot get a lot of games in america.)
Anybody who is going to go to the big ass hassle of modding a playstation probably has bought a plethora of games as well. So yes, Sony is alienating thier most die-hard customers.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
Sony has *always* been big on proprietary devices! What they're doing now with PS2 is pretty consistent with what they've always done.
Look at their digital cameras, for example. While everyone else in the market standardized on one of two memory cards, Sony had to be different and require their own "Sony memory stick" instead.
When it comes to camcorders, they do things differently too. Everyone else sells DV capable camcorders that use "DV tape". Not Sony. Instead, they sell DV camcorders using Hi8 tape, and write to it in a proprietary fashion to achieve the same results. (Granted, they allow backwards compatibility *playing* normal Hi8 tape, so you don't feel too non-standard.)
People who used to sell home and car audio can attest to their tactics too. Quite often, Sony will go out of their way to use a proprietary connector or cable to attempt to lock you into using only Sony authorized accessories.
They get away with all of this for one big reason; the stuff is good quality. When it comes down to it, Sony sells all manner of electronics and does a damn good job of it. If you try to boycott Sony, you only shoot yourself in the foot at some point. Often-times, they have the best product for a particular item and price-point.
You are only missing one little point in your logic. Broadband was designed to allow people to surf the web faster. Mod chips were specifically designed to override copyright protection of the Play Station. When you go to ModChip sites and the first thing you see is a flashing red banner that says, "Play any copied PlayStation game for the cost of a $19 USD chip and .50 cent CD" it is obvious what the intended use of the device is. If you don't believe me, try opening a gun store called A$$hole Removal Systems, LLC. and see how long it remains open.
Should someone create a chip that checked the copyright bit of the CD and the checksum and if these were true THEN still did not allow the CD to play but allowed home-grown CD's to play, I bet that chip would at least have a chance in standing up in court.
The documentation I was able to find on how to make home grown PlayStation games was very rare and horribly sketchy (sketchy = ModChip sites didn't have it in their FAQ or HOWTO). I was able to get the Psnes emulator with some NES ROMS burned onto a CD and playable in my Playstation, so it *is* possible to make homegrown games.
As for the backup issue, most companies that produce playstation games claim that if you send them your scratched, shattered, melted or otherwise expired CD, they will send you a replacement copy. I think we can all agree this is BS, and as games age, and as companies that produce them fold, merge, and otherwise, it is impossible to be assured that you will get a replacement. Only way to fight this is to file a class action suit that claims infringement of personal rights because they do take away your backup rights, claim to provide replacements and do not do so in a timely or reasonable manner.
In all, create a ModChip that allows home grown Playstation games to work but not copyrighted ones, then have your friend (or wait two weeks), create an application that changes the copyright bit and checksum on the CD to *fool* your ModChip into thinking it is not copyrighted. Then you can sell them in every drug store around the country risk free.
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.
And all consoles follow the Gillette model. Sell them the razors, and they'll buy the blades from you for years to come.
That highly spread misconception really annoys me. First off, it's not ENTIRELY true.
Everyone likes to think game consoles manufacturers make ALL of their money on software sales, and ALWAYS take a loss on the system. It quite simply isn't all there is to it.
Normally when a system debutes all of the real profit comes from software sales, this is true. The system still "Costs" more than it sells for because the R&D revenue hasn't been made back. The first two years of console sales tend to make that back. After that, continued sales tend to lean more and more towards the profit side, simply because the costs of manufacturing fluctuates and most companies that make a whole lot of something are constantly trying to cut costs in one form or another.
So while software sales ARE the most important factor in the end, the company STILL generates a lot of it's revenue from hardware sales as well because when selling systems you also get the bonus of selling controllers and accessories which have very high profit margins.
If console manufacturers didn't make profit on the consoles, there wouldn't be any console manufacturers. They would ALL be concentrating on software like Sega did.
It took two consecutive lost battles (32x and Saturn) to weaken Sega enough that they were in a state to give up so quickly on the Dreamcast. Had they been able to endure another year, they could've easily been profitable while making consoles. However, with the Gamecube and XBox adding to the Playstation 2 threat, Sega didn't have much hope.
But don't think it's because there's no money in hardware, that simply isn't true. There's PLENTY of money in hardware, even Nintendo claims they never take a loss on hardware sales (though that's hard to believe considering the Gamecube only costs $199). I think it simply stands true that while there is money in hardware, there is MORE money in software, and that will probably always be the case.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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.
Hey, jackass -- you missed one important fact: if I bought the hardware, it's mine and I can legally do any damn thing I want to it. If Sony doesn't like that, boo-fucking-hoo.
Furthermore, as long as I don't infringe on any patents , I can SELL hardware that works with the original hardware perfectly legally. Obviously, these guys weren't infringing on any patents, or Sony would have easily trounced them on those grounds. No, they had to find a stupid judge or a stupid law and get a really warped ruling, one that wouldn't get past U.S. law, thank goodness.
BTW, I'm not suffering one bit because people mod PS2's to play copied games. I am suffering because greed & stupidity is encouraging anti-competitive trusts to buy laws that encroach on my hard-won freedoms.
I'd far rather see Sony, Universal, et al. go out of business than see one person arrested and jailed for writing a program that *might* be used for copyright infringement. If they can't compete in an open market, fuck 'em.
---dragoness
'Customers' who pirate games aren't really customers, and I doubt Sony give a flying frogstar fart about alienating THEM
No, but it should be worried about alienating customers who love the product so much they'll pay extra to import games from Japan as soon as they're released, and rave to friends about how good they are, generating more sales when the games are released in Europe.
Any brand-oriented company in a commodity market knows, you piss off trend-setters and early adopters at your peril. Especially if you're competing against other very strong brands who can do most of what you can, and more of their own.
I strongly advise against copying PS2 games with pen and paper. Better use an infinite amount of monkeys with typewriters.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
When I buy a book, a CD, a DVD, or a program, I have bought a set of data. I own it. It is mine. I can sell it. I can loan it to my friends. If it is covered under copyright and I don't have a license to cover that then the law doesn't allow me to make copies and distribute those copies or perform public reinactments. But that is the only right that I don't have.
I am sick and tired of all these butt pirate corporate executives and the judges they bend over the podium taking away my fair use rights to the software that I personally own. I'm not like the judges in these cases, I don't like taking it up the ass for the media companies.
I don't own a license to any of the software I have. I never agreed to any license. If I have agreed to a license, then show me the signed contract. Click through doesn't count. I left my computer unattended, the cat must have accidently pressed the mouse button. If you have a witness that proves it was me that installed software on my computer, then produce that witness.
I actually own that copy of the software, outright. Just like I own a book or a magazine. If I want to buy japanese DVD's and play them in my American DVD player, I should be allowed to do so. If I want to rip my CD's into ogg's and play on my computer, then that is my business. If I want to rip the content of a DVD that I own and turn it into a DIVX CDR so that I can watch it on my laptop, again, that's my business.
If I want to read the dialog off the DVD and play it audibly as juicy ass farts, again, that is nobodies concern but my own. And believe me, if I started doing that, I would definately be concerned.
The media outlets want to limit our rights and divide us into smaller and smaller markets, which they maintain a full monopoly on. They want to make it so we can't see anything without paying them royalties on it. And they want a royalty everytime we do so.
They are just losing any goodwill they had with the consumers. They tend to forget just how valuable goodwill is. It can make or break the richest of companies. Beware and bewarned media conglomerates, it is almost time for us to pay you back for all those abuses you have been heaping on us lately. And payback is a bitch. It'll start with judges that don't stay bought and go downhill from there.
-- Never make a general statement.
The problem with these game consoles is that unless you work for a multi-million dollar company... and pay SONY ultra-big-bucks... you can't write for them. This greatly limits the number of fun games and useful products that could exist for PS2 and other devices.
Case in point... we would like to port our tranquility game (tqworld) to PS 2 -- but Sony won't even return our calls - why? because we arn't a BIG COMPANY with a BIG NAME and a BIG SAVINGS ACCOUNT from which to write SONY BIG BUCKS.
What this means is that we are held at bay by a limited number of games - in a limited number of genres - from a limited number of manufacturers.
The OLD BOYS CLUB.
Now sure... it's SONYs right to decide who can and can not create games for their devices... but their devices would be *oh so much more popular* if they opened up the game interface and allowed us regular joes to throw our programming talents at it.
Additionally... SONY seems to prefer to fund companies who create extremely violent games -- while ignoring companies who create games that are non-violent -- a highly unbalanced playing field.
Think, a moment, what would happen if MicroSoft, or Apple... removed the ability for you to put compilers on their computers and write your own code. What if the computer manufacturers would ONLY allow code from *licensed* companies to run. That would not only kill the entire programming profession, it would create a huge unbalance of software and capabilities.
Now consider what happens when Game Consoles MERGE with computers... will this be the outcome? Only writing programs for Microsoft if you PAY MS big money to be the privledged one to do so?
The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony.
So its ok to have the imported game, but the act of loading the game into the PS2's RAM is where the actual illeagal copying occurs. So I can make n copys and distribute them to all my friends, but the "real" copying (and infringement) doesn't occur until the disc is copied once more, but this time into the RAM of the PS2. Isn't this just semantics. This doesn't make sense.
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
The amusing thing is that they have exactly the opposite reputation in their home country. I don't know why, but for some reason it seems that Japanese folks tend to think of Sony as synonymous with shoddy workmanship. Maybe they have a history of releasing a lot of duds in Japan that they just don't bother trying to export, so we only see the good stuff over here. Anybody know more about why that is?
Such licence-restrictions are so absurd they should be declard illegal or void.
The manufacturer of a device, is telling me what I can, and cannot do in my own home, with software I purchased for it?
wait a minute, this sounds familiar.
Oh right, it was that blockhead who's the head of the MPAA. Jack Valenti. Once again, another company wants to set rules on private use of their product. What if I do want to use a fork to brush my hair? Maybe that butter knife actually is a screwdriver! (sorry mom)
How the fuck can the place of purchase of an item, used in your own home, make it illegal being used on the product it was designed to be used with?
Aslong as I paid for the product, $MANUFACTURER of both $DEVICE and $PRODUCT shouldn't give a damn.
da w00t. mtfnpy?
People, remember one important fact: The Ford car design is Ford's closed design, and other companies DO NOT have any right to produce wheels, carburettors, indicator lights and suchlike that can be fitted to Ford cars to modify them without legal consent from Ford. How hard is this for you people to understand? If you were Ford, how would you like it if people modified their cars in anyway after they'd left the factory. I would be pretty upset.
The thing that is so galling in this case is that unlike PC software, the user *has not* agreed to any form of license agreement with Sony when purchasing the software. The software *is not* 'licensed to be used in one region', it is purchased. I should be able to do anything I like with it that does not infringe on the copyright of Sony, and if I'm not copying it, then I'm not infringing on anything.
Zounds. The irony. Yes, the circumvention of the copy protection mechanism which allowed you to play pirated games was sufficient for the case to be awarded to Sony. However, the judge also ruled that playing imported games was illegal unless you have permission from the copyright holder. You should conceivably read the article again yourself.
Thats the most moronic argument in favor of draconian anti-piracy legislation there is. I'm losing Potentiall Money right now by not being able to buy my DVDs from overseas where they're cheaper. Those guys in England are losing Potential Money because they can't sell thier product. Potential Money is NOT REAL MONEY. The government has no buisness artificially augmenting a very successfull industry, which is exactly what they're doing. If a company can't compete within the normal limits of fair use, then perhaps that company should just fail.
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)
Why, exactly, can you not compare modifying a car to modifying a PS2?
Does the owner of the PS2 somehow not have less rights than a car owner?
If Sony had patents that covered the modifying of their system, then they would have taken them to court over patent infringement. The fact is they don't have patents covering that, so they've had to rely on the very dubious claim that they somehow 'license' the use of the games software to the consumer.
Sony produces a product that may people regard as flawed, in that it fails to play other region games. There are companies that sell modifications that fix the defect in Sony's original design, and people make use of them. Really, you still have to prove your point.
Why can't we? In what concrete way is it different? Go ahead and give me a list so that I may strike it down point by point.
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?
It would be interesting to see what evidence, if any, that Sony submitted, to support their allegation that the users are bound by the terms of some license. (Whatever evidence it was, it was apparently good enough to convince the judge. That's why I'd really like to see it.) I don't know how things work in UK, but here in USA, we normally purchase commerical software, not license it. This is especially true with console games, where the transaction is simply a cash-for-game deal between a retailer and an anonymous customer.
Another thing about that wording, is that it's not even clear who they are talking about. It almost sounds like the judge may have been referring to a license between Sony and some other entity (not the user) (perhaps a distributor or something like that?) -- i.e. we're not just talking about a EULA here. If that's true, it's very interesting, since it means that UK law allows a deal between two parties, to somehow magically cause a third party to unknowingly assume abligations. That would be really bizarre.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When it comes to camcorders, they do things differently too. Everyone else sells DV capable camcorders that use "DV tape". Not Sony.
That's funny, I guess my (Mini-DV) TRV-900 doesn't exist?
Sony has several lines of DV camcorders: the cheaper ones use digital-8, the higher end use Mini-DV, which is standard across most high end, consumer grade camcorders. Simple product differentiation- no great conspiracy.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
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.
We should all go buy old crappy games from pawnshop bargain bins for $4.99, scratch 'em up with a key, and ship them in for replacements. When none of them get replaced, we could try to pool our efforts on a class action suit.
do not read this line twice.
I can think of several uses for a modded playstation besides piracy. ALl of them very legal.
2. While not legal changing the region of your DVD to play foriegn movies should be.
3. [identical to 2]
So, really, you were only able to come up with one reason, albeit a good one. But i'd guess that the number of people "backing up" games they actually paid for is dwarved by the number of people just pirating them, in which case it's in Sony's best interest to disallow it.
As for the idiot who started this thread ("Sweet Day for X-Box"), are you implying that Microsoft will go easy on pirates? Does the Business Software Alliance ring a bell? Then again, since the X-Box is really just a trojan built to get into people's living rooms, they might turn a blind eye if it means increased console sales. But the hammer will fall, as always, once they've achieved a comfortable monopoly.
I don't sign if there is no EULA.
Console games don't come with a EULA. The publisher is protected by copyright and any patents that it has and that's it. It has no right to try and tell me where I can or cannot play my games.
Having outright ownership to the product entitles you to do with it whatever you want, up to and including making hundres of copies of the product (a PS2 game, in this case) and freely distributing it at no charge.
No it doesn't. That is already illegal under copyright law. The licences on software merely impose further restrictions on you, they are not the copyright holder's sole protection.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I can't see this as being good for PS2 sales
Agreed!
The reason the PS became the best selling console in the UK was because people could easliy pirate games onto a CD and play them with a mod chip.
No way could you easily pirate a Nintendo/sega cartrage.
Any market will have a stall selling dodgey pirate games, and any (indipendent) games shop will happily chip a PS for you.
In stopping this illegal trade, Sony are harming themselves not helping themselves!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
First explain it to me, and then to the judge:
'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game
Exactly how is this obvious? It seems to be the same argument that was made against VCRs when they came out. Who was the plaintiff in that one? Why, it was Sony, wasn't it? And has history shown that the argument was true?
Nope, no sig
I note that actual freedoms are being lost, and you whine that potential money, probably not even yours, is being lost?
/. has caused me to "go postal". What's the point of having a clue-by-4 if you can't hammer people over the head with it now and then?)
Oh man, I just bleed sympathy for you.
To everyone else:
I apologize if my language offends anyone I'm not responding directly to. As for those I'm responding directly to, in this and other posts, if you are offended--tough. I'm trying to offend you. And don't waste the effort telling me not to post again--I'll pay the same attention to you that I do to software EULAs.
(Yes, today's level of utter idiocy on
---dragoness
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.
While I see your point 2 and 3 are different. There is a large difference between breaking copy protection illegally (a la DMCA) to play a out of region DVD and Modding a system to accept out of country games which I believe is still legal. My understanding is that the reason the american ps1 could not play japanese games was due to hardware incompatabilities and not a region coded lockout. Which should make importing a japanese game legal while a japanese movie would be illegal.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
When you buy a book you own it. That does not give you copyright to the text embodied in it - you are still bound by copyright law that allow you to make copies for personal use (in most countries anyway), and in other very restricted circumstances, and that clearly forbid you from mass copying whether for profit or not.
The same copyright laws protect the text of the book whether it is in printed or electronic form.
The same way, if you were buying software outright instead of buying a license to use it, you would be buying that embodiment on it, subject to all the same constraints of copyright law.
In other words your argument is fatally flawed, but it is a good example of exactly the kind of arguments that the software industry (and indeed the movie and music industry) have been trying to use in order to justify their licensing scheme.
Licenses are being used not to enforce copyright - copyright law enforces copyright - they are there to enforce restrictions that go beyond the protection that is given by law.
Crowbars aren't illegal even if they may be used to break into a house. CD writers aren't illegal even though they may be used to, and are extensively used to, pirate music.
Whether it may be easier for Sony to prevent copying or not with the mods in question (I've no idea - I couldn't care less about Playstation), my point still stands: The courts are increasingly applying laws in a way that is eroding rights we have for practically everything else than software and assorted computer equipment.
It's a worrying trend, because it means that rights that people fought long and hard to get in the first place are now being taken away with the excuse that software and computers is something completely different, and require different rules.
Why?
What makes computer software more worthy of protection and restrictions than a printed book?
What makes computer hardware more worthy of protection than a car?
And no, Sony losing money for each PS sold isn't a good argument - if Sony can't recoup those costs without coopting the law, then Sonys business model is flawed.
Let's keep this short and simple for you, trolly: modchip companies aren't making modifications to jack shit. The people who make the actual modification to the system are the end users.
Since you're trolling, I'll go ahead and assume your other "points" are just as invalid. Cheers.
-Legion
I bought a Japanese PS2 when I was in Japan last spring. I bought it because I prefer to play games that involve voices, (like Final Fantasy X) in Japanese. It's sort of the same reason why I, like many others, prefer subtitled over dubbed anime.
In addition, there are several games that are never will be released in America. True Love Story 3 is a perfect example. The fabulous Tokimeki Memorial series on the PS1 are other games that will never be released here. These games would never sell in America, but I enjoy playing them.
Also, I was able to play Gran Turismo 3 several months before I could have in America.
So now, I have this Japanese PS2 and despite my best efforts, I had yet to find a way to play American games! I still can't play Metal Gear Solid 2 and I've been wanting to play SSX Tricky for a long time. I have no desire to pirate games - just be able to purchase both imports and American games and play them on my PS2. I know this is possible, but SONY is making it quite difficult for us!
I don't care about what British copyright law says, but American copyright law has "fair use" built into it which gives me some rights over what I can do with copyrighted material I've purchased. This includes making back-up copies for myself, or playing a game on a foreign or even custom-made playstation.
I'm still searching for a way to play American games on my PS2. I have a little box that plugs in to the USB port that lets me play American PS1 games on it, but I haven't been able to get American PS2 games to work. I thought a "game shark" might help, but it turns out that those too, are region coded. Anyone have any ideas?
the manual until after I've played the game. The
first time I play, I see NO end user lisence agreement stating that to play the game I need to
agree to the terms of the lisence, unlike software for my PC.
While there may be an agreement in the manual somewhere, I don't have to read or agree to it
in any way to play the game. The same goes with DVDs
that I buy.
As far as I'm concerned, I haven't agreed to a single thing at all when I pop in the PS2 disc
and play it. As far as I'm concerned, I should
be able to play whatever I want in the thing as
long as I bought it legally.
I've never played burned discs on my consoles, and
have no intention on ever doing it. I have, however, played import discs on my consoles, and
have every intention on doing it again if there
is a game I really want that will not be released
here in the USA.
A more fair ruling, IMO, would be to force mod
chip makers to make their products in a way such that burned discs can not be read, but imports
still can.
Honestly, I doubt Sony of UK or Sony of America lose much sales over imports. Only a very small
percentage of people will buy an import when a
US release of the game is imminent. Not too many
people want to play through FFX having to spend 5
minutes on every dialogue box looking through a
kanji dictionary.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
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!
Please tell me the name of the president of the UK then :)
That's an easy one. Tony Blair.
Oh. Wait. Tony only thinks he's a president...!
"Information wants to be paid"
So? It's NOT the business of the government or of me to guarantee any particular business a profit, or indeed that it stay in business.
But it IS the business of government to see that, when a person or organization has played by the government's rules and has something of value, they do not lose that value to someone who has NOT played by the government's rules.
You may have an argument with the rules - whether they're proper, or whether they're consistent with the rest of the rules - especially those that override lower-level rules. But that argument is not with Sony, but with the government: With the legislature (for constructing the obnoxious rule), or with the courts (for not resolving the inconsistency with other rules of the same or higher precedence).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, copying programs from a legit copy to RAM in order to run them is perfectly lawful.
Section 17 of the Copyright, Design and Patent act 1988
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.
So yes, it is illegal in the UK.
This is what annoys me with this - a court is denying a company to sell a product that takes away restrictions placed on the customer for no reason except to reduce competition by making it impractical for customers to import games from abroad.
Someone else have already commented on New Zealands move to outlaw region coding of movies as an unfair restraint of trade...
"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!
I live in the UK, and our copyright laws are plenty comprehensive enough to cover this situation. In fact, we don't even have a fair use clause; technically, I am infringing every time I copy a CD to minidisc to listen to on my way in to work.
As for piracy in other countries, if copyright is ignored, what makes you think the licences will be honoured?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The exemptions in the DMCA are useless. Look at Judge Kaplan's decision. The courts don't respect them, so we can't trust them.
We can't even be guaranteed our right to trial under the 7th Amendment. "Summary judgement for plaintiff" overrides that. Unconstitutional yes, but that won't stop the courts from taking everything you have and giving it to the plaintiff.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Where is this license? Did I click 'Agree'? Did I sign paper? Did I verbally agree? No.
I bought a PS2 game in the mall, and took it home from my vacation to play it.
My uncle is not a ford dealer; yet he modifies people's cars for them. He does all kinds of work to make them faster. he has pre-packaged kits to soup them up.
Is this illegal because he does not have a license from ford?
Because the situation with sony is *exactly* the same.
Your statement is a scary indication of the way people are beginning to think due to the bizarre software licensing issues we have been plagued with for the last 2 decades. People actually think that the company that sold you a device outright can dictate what you do with it. They can't.. they SOLD IT TO YOU..
The mass amounts of money that 'Companies' lose on copyrighted software is bullshit spewed by the SPA and the like. Sure, they may lose some sales.. but nowhere near the numbers they make you think they do.
It's the First Sale doctrine. You cannot exercise control over something once you sell it.
But they ARE legally allow to make it illegal for YOU to use YOUR OWN backups. Under the law they can do whatever they want, but our attempts to exercise our rights in spite of their resistance is illegal.
That is EXTREMELY anti-symetric in favor of the rights of the manufacturers.
What good is the right to make backups if they are illegal to use? And with the DMCA, even making the backup is often illegal (since "circumvention" is required to do so).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The Ford car design is Ford's closed design, and other companies DO NOT have any right to produce wheels, carburettors, indicator lights and suchlike that can be fitted to Ford cars to modify them without legal consent from Ford.
Completely wrong (at least in the EU). There is a large market in after market spares from independent manufacturers for most makes of cars, and the car companies took a test case to the High Court and lost.
'nuff said.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
No, the American PS1 could play Japanese games just fine. Sony put a hardware lockout that checked the region code of a CD before booting it to prevent console onwners from importing games. A mod chip disabled this lockout, allowing original Japanese and European games to be played on a US system.
In fact, there exists a mod chip for the PS1 that only allows original imports to be played - NOT copies.
Whether this is any different is left as an exercise for the reader.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Closed design/architecture doesn't mean a damn thing. I can make all of the Ford replacement parts that I like, without Ford's permission, as long as I don't violate any Ford patents, copyrights or trademarks. The same applies to Sony, although I'm sure they patented everything they could on the PS1/2. If I was willing to wait for the patents to expire, the only thing stopping me from manufacturing PlayStation clones would be the copyright on the firmware. Calling something "closed" does not create intellectual property rights.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Think, a moment, what would happen if MicroSoft, or Apple... removed the ability for you to put compilers on their computers and write your own code. What if the computer manufacturers would ONLY allow code from *licensed* companies to run.
Don't give them (and the US Congress) any ideas - otherwise they might become a reality - enforced at the point of a government gun.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Well, quite.... I was lampooning the parent poster's post.
;)
cheers,
Tim
I agree. my post was lampooning the parent poster's post.
;)
cheers,
Tim
This judgement could have far reaching implications, with the judge implying that even playing original imports was illegal.
This effectively upholds region codes, both on games and DVDs.
The irony, in my case, is that I wouldn't go to the trouble of ripping (and very rarely pirating) DVDs if it weren't for CSS and region codes.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Thanks for the laugh. I stopped buying Sony products a long time ago due to the poor workmanship of the walkmans I bought (the high-end ones). I received my Playstation as a gift not too long after they were introduced, and I have to turn it upside down to get cut scenes to play (if I'm lucky) at all, thanks to Sony's cheap plastic laser sled.
I rank Sony right up there with quality companies like GE and Sanyo.
-Legion
I would love a way to put in my disk to a jukebox affair, and have my dvd player hook to it, my PS2, and my stereo. That way 'mishaps' would happen less.
Realisticly thou, How long will the hardware last, or be backward compatable? Further: CD's have the potential to last 30 years, but how many people will actually want to listen to them? Oh wait.. there is great 50's music :)
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
You are allowed to resell your physical media if you've uninstalled all previous copies. Is the new owner bound by the license he only sees during the installation process? He cannot take advantage of any 'return for refund' option if he bought it in an estate sale or from a storage unit place auctioning off stuff from college students that didn't pay their summer storage fees. Is it a valid contract if you have no choice but to accept it? Are the companies supposed to allow someone who buys software in an auction to return it for a refund at retail price? Or are we just starting to enter this era and there are no legal guidelines?
The Genesis cartridges were a different shape in Japan than in America. But there was a converter you could buy, so you could buy $10 japanese games instead of $30 american games. The hiragana/kanjii by the way is way more of a hassle than you'd think.
Anyone remember if this was produced by Sega? I'd imagine not, but they certainly didn't go after the company for selling it.
Is there any way these restrictions could be challenged under WTO rules?
It is conceivable that a mere statement of the copyright holder could nullify 17 USC 117 in some jurisdictions where it appears the courts (wrongly) treat 117 as not applying because the copyright holder, and not the purchaser is the owner, rather than going by the owner of the media/physical copy.
You can have a DMCA violation even where no copyright infringment occurred, so it should be conceivable that one can lose the protections of 17 USC 117 even without being found in breach of a contract.
Also, the law authorizes temporary copies when doing so is an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program".
The software company could claim that use outside of the specifications of the license doesn't count. The program was never meant to be utilized like that.
(Layers out there, I have a question, could the above argument actually work?? I do hope the answer is NO)
I am not a lawyer and I came up with that. Imagine what a $100K/hour lawyer could come up with!
17 USC 117 appears to have as many holes as Swiss Cheese.
And with judges like Jacob (this case) or Kaplan (DeCSS) we are in great trouble indeed.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
This was a case of MAI employees leaving to join Peak to service MAI computers. It was also a case of undisputed licence (machines & software acquired by third parties) not a shrink- or click-wrap.
IANAL, but this case seems to have been very poorly defended by a defendant that did plenty of wrong things & the courts wanted to punish. Some more obvious defenses that were apparently not used:
unreasonable restraint of trade to prohibit competition in servicing MAI computers,
agency -- Peak was doing the copying to RAM at third-party specific request, just like a 3rdP employee.
Peak wan't party to licence with third-party for the machine under service, so 17 USC 117 governs, not licence. 3rd parties should have been persued for licence violation.
Bad facts make bad decisions make bad law.
In the UK (US too) a legal system of precedent is used. This means that judges and juries should follow what was set down before.
When a case comes to court that challenges an old way of thinking, or would have NEGATIVE consequences, the judge or jury is well within thier rights to rule AGAINST the law. A poor judge is one who refuses to do his moral job and simply upholds the letter of the law.
This is the advantage a precedent system has over a penal system. There is a flexibility so that a single ruling can change the face and scope of the law.
This tendency you mention is a side-effect of the monopolies that exist in these areas. When large companies are buying software for servers (not desktops, see below), they're often given much more fair licensing terms. Why? Because there's competition. Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and maybe a half-dozen other players, depending on what exactly you're shopping for. Same goes for hardware.
In the consumer desktop arena? Much less choice. Microsoft gets to dictate the terms for the operating system and office suite. Or you can not buy it and not be able to work with the rest of the planet. Hardware "standards"? Same - if it doesn't work with Windows, most will consider it "broken". Which is why copy protection's going to be so hard to fight - if Windows doesn't work with unprotected hard disks, they're "broken" in the minds of those who don't care about the technical details.
The same applies to the "entertainment" industry. Music? RIAA. Movies? MPAA. (Or their arms in other countries) Gaming consoles? Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. Not much competition there, especially since they're all in collusion on this point. And game publishers have no choice - they have to go through one of the above. (And many are now owned or otherwise controlled by one of the above anyway)
Though its not just the monopoly. The organizations above have been lying to consumers for years - "You don't have to worry about learning how the technology works!" "Trust the black box - it'll do everything for you!" "No, no, no. Its ok! Those licensing terms are normal for software. They're the only way we can hope to make money!" Sound familiar? By now, people are so brainwashed that they don't even consider that these might be lies. Or they ignore the EULAs anyway, and assume they won't be persecuted if they infringe.
Guess what? With the market going into a recession, however slight, these companies (which sell "frills" that are only in really high demand in times of prosperity) are going to start feeling a sqeeze. Which means their shareholders will start demanding more profit, which (in turn) will result in even more draconian licensing policies and lashing out at anyone who violates them in a mad grab for cash. Sounds unlikely? Its already happening, on a small scale, with visits from the secret software police to businesses suspected of infringement.
This also wipes out any chances of seeing home brewed software on the Playstation 2 anytime soon
Ah, it wouldn't be a Slashdot article without a misinformed quip at the end.
A ruling on mod chips does not affect anything to do with the Linux PS2 kit being released. That's like saying that a ruling saying removing region blocking for DVD's is bad would stop Apple from releasing iMovie/iDVD.
Quite simply, the judge did the right thing. If this was just region bypassing I would have been annoyed too, but it allows for backups, and that allows warez kiddies to distribute games for it. Look at the DC to see what rampant warezing can do.
Yes, it doesn't get rid of all backups, and you can probably just import another one from lik-sang, but it raises the bar of difficulty.
"Piracy" is only a smoke-screen and that region controls are much much more important to Sony. This is obvious if you calculate how much money they are losing:
Your friends probably would have bought *ZERO* of those games that they got for free, because there is a HUGE perceived price differential between free and any cost whatsoever. So Sony lost nothing. But anybody who *BUYS* the overseas disk (and pays to ship it!) would likely BUY the disk for an inflated price when it appears locally (the inflated price is probably less than the cost of getting that overseas disk). Thus Sony loses the difference between the inflated local price and the foreign disk.
They will talk all they want about "piracy" but Sony knows the real area they are losing money and they are attacking the region coding. They cannot admit it because they will lose their case, but there actions prove it.
As for "piracy" if Sony thought they could do anything about it they would go after the Asian manufacturers who are actually *selling* pirated games. In this case many of the people using those pirated games would have bought the real game (because the pirated copy is not free) so this represents real losses of potential sales.
If any of you actually bothered to read the article, you would see that the judge acknowledge that there were plenty of legal things this chip allowed you to do, but because it also allowed the illegal playing of pirated games this outweighed the good points and THAT IS WHY SONY WON THE CASE. RTFM!!!
Which is a very dangerous ruling, maybe someone should ban the judge using the same reasoning that his potential for illegal acts outways any posible good he might do...
You are legally allowed to make and keep backups of your software. Right or wrong, the hardware manuf. is not legally obligated to allow you to use the backups, though.
But should they have the ability to prevent you being able to use your backups or to prevent a third party providing something to enable you to do so.
Effectivly it's case of "we can't take that right away from people, but we can manipulate things such that for all practical purposes the right is useles". The difference between these situations is really a matter of hair splitting.
Is it true that there's no "fair use" or "fair dealing" provision in UK copyright law?
There was, though those terms wern't used...
Conventional software is even more specific, you have to press that "ok" button for the software is installed and once you've done that, you've signed the EULA in a legally binding matter.
If they were why do you thing UCITA exists?
How would you feel if Honda said that they started making their cars maintenence free, and as such welded the hood shut, and got rid of all the filler caps, so that when its time to change the oil, add gas, change filters, replace battery etc, you had to buy a new car, or a new engine. Don't think that would fly.
Consider if they then started prosecuting people who make a kit to change the car back into one with more regular maintenence.
Customers' who pirate games aren't really customers, and I doubt Sony give a flying frogstar fart about alienating THEM.
People who import games are most definitly customers. They are not "pirates" because they are perfectly prepared to pay a fair price for the games. Pirates generally would not pay at all for the games.
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.
But odds on Levi and Sony would be shouting "free trade" if anyone tried to restrict their supply systems.
software is typically "licensed", not sold.
This was first tried around a century ago with books, IIRC eventually wound up with the US supreme court saying that it was utterly meaningless. I wonder why this ruling was never followed through with software.
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.
Effectivly the problem started with software and is spreading (through firmware) into hardware...
Imagine, if you will, buying the product instead of a lisence. Having outright ownership to the product entitles you to do with it whatever you want, up to and including making hundres of copies of the product (a PS2 game, in this case) and freely distributing it at no charge
That would be be a violation of regular copyright law. It's "commercial piracy", that you arn't charging isn't relevent.
Why should buying a PS2 game be any different from buying a book?
This is why lisencing as it exists today is the norm. Unfortunately, such a system is also prone to abuse, but I think the good (the continued existence of the software industry) outweighs the bad (unreasonable EULA's and overzealous attourneys).
So how come the software industry needs this special kind of rules? Especially when the "software industry" is a minority of industry as a whole and the number of corporate consumers of software dwarfs the producers. Note that even if this "software industry" were to vanish overnight software would not and enterprising people would come up with viable ways for software to be used as the useful tool it is. (Protecting the "software industry" is starting to look like the tail wagging the dog.)
When you buy a book you own it. That does not give you copyright to the text embodied in it - you are still bound by copyright law that allow you to make copies for personal use (in most countries anyway), and in other very restricted circumstances, and that clearly forbid you from mass copying whether for profit or not.
Assuming that the copyright law is sensible. When it comes to software that in the UK is daft, since it dosn't allow using the software. Things are similar in the US, but the law appears to have been bodged slightly in the customers favour.
A well written copyright law would not restrict using, making backups, transfering to different media at all, problem is that if such laws did exist they have been obliterated by the lobbying of greedy publishers.
Completely wrong (at least in the EU). There is a large market in after market spares from independent manufacturers for most makes of cars, and the car companies took a test case to the High Court and lost
But they keep trying, which is the point. What happens if instead of going to court they decide instead to start lobbying to get the law changed?
I have a number of friends who pay a premium to have games shipped from Japan to the United States because in their infinite wisdom, Sony and the software companies have decided not to import that game.
Presumably Sony think that by being able to overcharge people in some places on the games they do release they make up for the lost sales as "imports".
Or maybe being able to control distribution matters to them more than actually making money by selling things.
Why doesn't someone just make one that specifically doesn't let you play a copy, this is the logical step to to take as no one is going to try to pull you into court and sue you for play a non US game are they.
IIRC the way Sony's "protection system" works simply dosn't allow playing only imports and not pirate. I'm not even sure if it allows the equivalent of a region 0 on the media.
Just as the vendor is not under any obligation to change the terms he wishes to impose upon you, you also are not required to agree the the vendor's terms. You can walk away from the deal.
If it's ok for a software company to say "by opening this box you have agreed to whatever" why isn't it equally binding on the software company to have "by opening the envelope you have agreed to..."?
I never said *all* of their stuff is good quality. In fact, I too was burned on a Sony Discman walkman. I paid about $150 for one of their "car" Discman's. Stupid thing skipped worse than any other CD player I've ever owned! The "anti skip" feature seemed to only delay skips by whatever the length of its memory buffer was. (You'd hit a bump and not hear a skip, but 2.5 seconds later, there goes the skip that it buffered earlier!)
I think the jury's still out on the quality of the Playstation. I hear all sorts of horror stories about broken PS2's, but when I see how they're treated - it all starts to make sense. People let the cooling fans gets all clogged up with cat/dog hair and dust, and then wonder why it died. (These are often the same people who leave their PS2 running all the time, instead of only powering it on when they want to play it. Of course the CD-ROM drive is going to wear out spinning a disc for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!) The bottom line for any Playstation is, the thing only cost $200 or so, tops, to begin with. Just how much build quality do you expect? I think they're reasonably built for what you pay for them. Apparently, so do a *lot* of other people, judging by the number of sales.