Slashdot Mirror
Chip a Playstation, Go to Jail
perogiex writes "A man in Ottawa was
convicted of selling and installing mod chips out
of his computer store. Sony is overjoyed, man is less than thrilled. This is the first time such a case was tried in Canada." From the article: Garby said he didn't know he was committing a crime and would have never gotten involved in selling mod chips if he had known the law. Update: 07/24 21:53 GMT by M : Headline corrected; it's clearly mod chips for the original Playstation, not the Playstation 2.
For anyone who looks at mod chips as a way to do hobbiest development, versus piracy, this kind of thing is just depressing.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
I'm scratching my head. What law was broken here? The article doesn't say very much. Something about "copyright laws", which is far from conclusive.
This guy was selling a line of 413 pirated games and didn't know what he was doing was illegal? It sounds like he deserves what he got.
While I agree that chipping a PS2 shouldn't be a crime, the above is an extreamly lame excuse.
Free Mac Mini
He didn't know it was a crime?
He should've checked.
If it's morally questionable (and, please, don't tell me that chipping your PS2 so you can play pirated games on it isn't at least morally questionable), it just might be illegal, too!
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Looks like I'll be picking up a new hobby...
The article states that he was selling pirated games alongside the mod chips. Maybe the charge of copyright infringement related to the illegal video games being sold (as Sony did not design the mod chips, it is unclear of whose copyright he would be violating).
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
It sounds like he was also selling pirated games. I wonder if they would ever have cracked down on him if all he had done was sell and install mod chips. The article seems to downplay the fact that he was selling pirated games as well.
Even though I think selling mod chips shouldn't be illegal, I don't have sympathy for people who are selling pirated software!
according to the article, he sold "a line of 413 pirated video games" -- that's a little more than just selling modchips.
dennis
[ ] Bad
[ ] Good
[ ] CowboyNeal
sulli
RTFJ.
If you read the article, he was also selling a line of 417 different *pirated games*.
If he didnt know *that* was illegal, he's full of it.
Ignorance is not a permissible defense anyway. Go ahead, try convincing the police officer you didn't know it was 45 on the road. Even if you turn onto the road after the sign and had no way of knowing if you had never driven on the road before, the law still applies.
What?
(emphasis mine)
Garby sold the chips from his computer store, Kustum Komputers
That in itself should get him life in prison with no chance of parole.
Trolling is a art,
Since the mod chips circumvent copy protection, I can see how they are made illegal under the DMCA in the US. Is there a Canadian version to this I am not aware of?
2) Heh heh.. he still made some money off the deal.
3) Damn! 413 games! Where did you say this guy's shop was?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
allow playing games that have been copied to CDR.
It's legitimate use is that it allows playign games from Japan.
FYI, the PS and PS2 also have region encoding similar to DVDs. Japanese games can't be played on American consoles, and (I believe) vice-versa. The mod chip prevents the system from recognizing that its not a legitimate disc (by replying to all queries as 'yes, this is legal')
Just as DeCSS is primarily used for watching other-regon dvds, but has a side effect of getting unencrypted content, the mod chip allows playing other-region games, and has a side effect of allowing games on CDR also.
Chances are that's why he got arrested. In the US, he could probably (also?) be arrested under the DMCA.
I'm not taking any sides, just stating facts...
Jesus!!! In the US, he probably would have been held indefinitely in an army compound with "american Taliban" stamped on his forehead.
I think he was likely fined mostly for the sales of the pirated games. I don't believe we have an equivalent to the DMCA in Canada, and therefore the mod chip is perfectly allowable to be sold in Canada. He got caught for software piracy, not for breaking DRM.
But, I am not absolutely sure on this. Could a Canadian Lawyer verify this for me? Also, do you know if he could get caught on that Mod chip for a different reason?
~ kjrose
Yes, okay, the last 10 times that was said probably were enough.
Here's a scenario. You bought a rad new PS2 game, you want to make sure that if it gets scratched, eaten, etc. . . you can still play your game, so you burn a copy, and use the mod chip to play the game. You paid for the game once, right? What's wrong with that.
If you ask me, aside from the selling pirated games, this guy had a case.
--What, you ain't know about them country fried sessions?
He was charged after an RCMP investigation found he was selling a line of 413 pirated video games and charging $30 to install "mod chips" in Sony PlayStation video game consoles.
It sucks about him getting busted for the mod chips, but if you're selling pirated games, you've got no excuse for a little punishment. When you start profitting off of your ability to make exact replicas of other peoples work, with little work of your own, you're really profitting off of their work, not yours - and that's not fair.
-Andrew
I'd be tempted to defend this punk if he wasn't selling "a line of 413 pirated video games". Mod chips are great for playing games that never get sold in the US market, imports like Puyo Puyo games and such. I also detest hardware manufacturers who demand control over their hardware that they sell through retail outlets without forcing the customer to sign a contract. If I want to solder my toaster up to my PS2, IMHO, I think I should have a right to do it.
But noooo, this punk sells illegally copied CDs, slashdot posts it as "man convicted for installing mod chips" in an attempt to spin the story. Smooth move, Travolta. I'm sorry, but I left my gold stars in my other jacket.
Reading over the comments, I've seen people claim 413, 417 and 430... so far. All in the same ballpark, but really, how hard is it to copy a simple number from an article?
Look, there is a PS/2 and there is PS2 (without slash in the middle) First is very old IBM computer, second -- new (relatively) gaming console.
So, what this guy was selling ??
I keep picturing a guy going to jail for upgrading his IBM 386.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
First of all its a PS2 not PS/2.
Second, the artice said Sony Playstation, meaning the orginal playstation.
This slashdot artice makes it seem like they will go after you for putting a mod chip in, well this idiot "was selling a line of 413 pirated video games".
This is a true law in most cases, ignorance of the law does not excuse you from abiding by the law. I was not trying to imply otherwise. However in your speeding scenario some states have laws that state unless other wise posted the speed is XX mph (Usuaully 55). So if you are around their and can name the street you turned off on you have a good chance of actually beating it. I drove alot for an orginzation I was involved in and I found in rural areas 55 was usually a preaty safe bet as speed limits signs are posted very infrequently. Well firmly into Off Topic land now.
I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
And on top of that, he was advertising this in the local paper?
I have MANY times seen people selling mod chips in the local papers (in Canada). There is usually something in there like: "... to play backups and imports..." I have a feeling they only went after him because he was selling pirated video games. There is no such thing as a DMCA in Canada, so you're allowed to hack apart a PS/2 all you want, and modify it to play backup games, but you still can't make illegal copies of games.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
He was fined for selling pirated video games, as others have pointed out. As well, it was PlayStation games and mod chips, not PS2 (and most definitely NOT PS/2).
"Editors": Is it so hard to read the article?
Ignorance of the law is no defense.
That said, I'm interested to find out which part of the Criminal Code specifically makes installing mod chips, and presumably other circumvention devices, a felony offense. It sounds rather DMCA-like. I wonder if Parliament passed something DMCA-like with almost no fanfare. The article makes it sound like the mod chip conviction is the important one for being the first of its kind.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Of course, as the ad says, mod chips also allow people to play copied games, but this is far from their only purpose. (Mods used to come out for cartridge systems by Sega and Nintendo as well, though it was often enough to just resize the cartridge slot.)
If he was convicted of mod-chipping seperately from selling pirated games, it is a big deal. Sony says the case was, "precedent setting." Therefore, I doubt the conviction was based on his selling of pirated games, which are already illegal.
Just one more reason not to do business with Sony. I'll accept anti-piracy measures. Iw ill never accept reion coding and I will not support a company that participates in it, especially with such vigor as Sony.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
He was convicted of selling 413 pirated video games and Playstation mod-chips.
How do I know this? Well, first, I read the article; second, I know that there aren't 413 GAMES available for the Playstation 2!
Also, the PS/2 is a computer from IBM, and does not require mod chips to play pirated games. Sony doesn't call their Playstation 2 the PS/2, perhaps because they don't want to get sued. Does slashdot want to get sued? Well, it'd be nice to have some penalties for irresponsible journalism...
Finally, considering the facts of the case, it is disingenuous for the writers of this article to call it a conviction for selling mod-chips, since that wasn't all it was.
In conclusion, all you journalists are lazy, illiterate, and incompetent. If you don't agree with me, prove me wrong by writing something accurate, intelligent, or interesting.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Ignorance of the law excuses noone. There are about thirty different latin phrases, but the bottom line best response to our poor defendant's please is this: "You're kidding, right?"
four counts of selling unauthorized computer equipment
Isn't that a bit misleading?
If I buy an extension cord and use it to plug in my computer, who "authorized" that bit of computer equipment? Who authorized Bob's Harware to sell it to me?
-... ---
Actually the artile only talked about "PlayStation", not "PlayStation2". So I guess it would be PSOne, not PS2...
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
The one true doughnut.
Best Slashdot Co
>>selling mod chips shouldn't be illegal?!?!
>Do you also have a hacked cable box? It is theft of service.
You miss the point so badly:
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
I'll give you a quick lesson in right & wrong:
RIGHT: You decide to paint your car YOU OWN, a color other than what it was manufactured.
WRONG: You LEASE (or steal) a car, and repaint it without the owner's permission.
INAL, but as far as I'm aware, Mod chipping is a grey area of legality. Is it not illegal to sell or own the chips, however it is illegal to sell the PS/2 with one pre-installed, as that comes under the heading of selling Sony's product with unauthorized modifications.
What the customer dies with the unit *after* he pays for it is totally up to the customer...as long as the customer accepts the fact that it will not be covered under warranty.
It is a grey area because the ModChips can be used for legitimate uses as well as illegal ones...Much the same way that a CD-RW can be used for legit back-up and archival purposes as well as for pirating software.
This guy hasn't a leg to stand on as he sold Sony Product with unauthorized modifications as well as selling pirated software.
Phoenix
BTW: Before I get flamed/trolled, a legit use of a mod chip would be to have a working copy of a game that can get scratched and/or broken while the original is sitting in a nice shelf somewhere safe.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
From the article:
Robert Garby, 38, pleaded guilty to two counts of copyright infringement and four counts of selling unauthorized computer equipment
Can somebody familiar with canadian law explain to me what "selling unauthorize computer equipment" involves. Is this like not getting the chips properly licensed with the canadian equivalent of the FCC? Or does canada have some sort of DMCA-like provision that I'm not aware of.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is the moral right of the producer to dictate the terms under which his product is offered. You don't like the terms, you don't use the product. Simple as that.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
So that you can use half an OS on it (OS/2) and be quarter productive.
Rod Taylor
(Maybe you should come up with some other abbreviation for "Playstation 2"...abbreviation overloading is a Bad Thing. :-) )
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
If everyone is expected to know all the laws and what they mean, then why are there so many lawyers? Our law systems are so confusing and complex that we have to hire special people to interpret and find laws that will help defend us and prosecute others. So it's not suprising that someone might not know there's a new law saying something is illegal.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
If you OWN something, it's YOURS. Not only do you NOT have the right to take away people's freedom, but you also have no right to even KNOW what people do with their property.
Not that I disagree with your point at all, indeed I heartily agree. But try telling that to the BATF if, for example, you make a minor mechanical modification to a legally owned semi-automatic rifle that converts it to fully-automatic (ie a machine gun), or cut the barrel of your legally owned shotgun down to less than 18 inches.
If you thought DMCA enforcement was tough...
-- Alastair
NO it isn't.
Their ability to DICTATE to you ends as soon as you give them your money. For any other sort of property, this is painfully obvious. Only for "artificial" property are restrictions such as these considered anything but absurd megalomaniacal fantasy.
The only thing that is reasonable is that the "artificial property" of the authors in question is not reproduced without their permission. Even this is only a special case rule that is put in place to further a particular (and well defined) public policy objective.
"Producers" have no moral rights whatsoever.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The /. version of this says he was convicted of selling and installing mod chips, but makes no mention of the pirated video games he was also selling. Since the original story is often unavailable moments after a slashdot article goes up, this was truly a disservice to the readers. The story gives no clear indication of what the hoser was really convicted of, the mod chip or the illegal copyrighted software, but I expect there would have been a lot more trouble of getting a conviction without the illegal software. For that matter, the guy was only fined 17k and giver a year of probation after selling (at least) 30k of illegal software, doesn't sound like he made out too bad or that this will seriously curtail the piracy issue.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
342.1(1) Unauthorized use of computer
342.1 (1) Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service,
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system, or
(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
342.1(2) Definitions
(2) In this section,
computer program means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function;
computer service includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data;
computer system means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which,
(a) contains computer programs or other data, and
(b) pursuant to computer programs,
(i) performs logic and control, and
(ii) may perform any other function;
data means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system;
electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normalhearing;
function includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communication or telecommunication to, from or within a computer system;
intercept includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof.
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 45.
He was also convicted of straightforward, old-style piracy; he was apparently selling pirated games on CDRs.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
You're very very very wrong. Historically, culturally, and legally.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The story clearly says that he was busted for both copyright infringement (the illegal program disks) AND selling "unauthorized computer equipment" Seems to me that the formet charge was vaild, while the latter was not. Does this mean that if I sell an overclocked computer in Canada (read; a CPU being used in an "unauthorized way") that I can now go to jail?
These guys didn't see the law either?
This seems like a legit company selling a device to allow Playstation 2 to play copies, backups etc. Is this illegal?
The act of "theft" is what is wrong, not the modification. It is the actual "theft" that should be prosecuted. The mere exercise of an individual's property rights should not be prosecuted.
Individual property rights are one of the pillars of the modern western democracies. They should not be trampled upon so casually.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
In general this wouldn't be necessary because journals have an obligation to present the facts and correct themselves as needed. Slashdot rarely reflects these practices, however, and many other online equivalents of pen-and-paper journals are sorely lacking in their journalism.
However, people and organizations can still be sued for slander and libel, even under the First Amendment. I think that organizations that purport to report the News have an obligation to report the facts accurately, and should be held to a higher standard than are individuals.
I'm arguing that the headline is negligent and misleading, and should be corrected. Every minute that goes by when it isn't misleads and confuses another person who might have expected news or accurate reporting. Many people have come to expect this sort of inaccurate reporting from slashdot, but that doesn't excuse it.
Perhaps they could have an "editor" on duty whose job it is to "edit"?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
He was selling and installing chips so people could play the pirated games he was selling. They didn't mention any other types of mods. If he was only selling chips, nobody would have cared. Since he was also selling lots of pirated games some one took notice.
Xaotik Designs
Actually, you're talking about two completely different things.
In scenario #1, you're asking about a *purchased* cable box. Why yes, if the owner of said box wishes to make some modifications to the electronics inside of it that allow it to decrypt all incoming signals - I think that's perfectly ok and legal. If the owner proceeds to actually *use* the box to watch cable he/she isn't paying for, then that's a seperate issue and more of a "grey area".
In scenario #2, you're talking about *stealing* a move theater's key. Right there, obviously, it's illegal. Stealing isn't legal. If, however, you were an owner of the theater and copied the key - do you think anyone would care or have a problem with it? Probably not!
(Incidently, back to scenario #1, the real problem, in my opinion, is that cable companies made poor decisions in the design of their systems. They pipe *all* of the channels in to the homes of their customers.... in many cases - to homes of people who are no longer even customers at all, simply because they didn't bother to disconnect the physical cable when the previous home-owner moved. By doing this, they've created a "grey area" for themselves. Is it morally ok and/or legally ok to use one's own equipment to descramble these signals that are already coming into his/her home? Perhaps so. If the cable company didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't put the signals out there to begin with.) It's sort of like me signing all of the checks in my checkbook in advance, leaving the book in a public place, and walking off. Then I scream about the illegal activities being done against me when people start using those checks without my approval. Hey, why was I stupid enough to sign them all ahead of time? Do I even have a strong legal case against the users of said checks?
Mod chips/pirates games are all in one and the same
Give me a break. A pirated game is a copy of a game created without authorization from the government or from the copyright owner. A mod chip is a device that lets you run unsigned code on a game console. How does putting an interop chip in your PS1, writing a program on your PC, compiling it with GCC, burning it to a CD, and putting it in the PS1's drive violate Sony's copyright?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The guy was selling about 413 illegally pirated copies of video games. I think that very obviously shows intent to infringe. Selling the mod chips in conjunction with those video games is very obviously going to nail him on intent.
So suddenly his mod chips are no longer semi-grey market (as the de-Macrovision devices you can get at Radio Shack are, for example) and are now part of the reason he gets the fine and probation.
Perfectly reasonable and nothing to be ashamed or outraged at.
Now, if he had just been selling the mod-chips under cover of interoperability with Japanese imports, for example, or for playing back-up games, I doubt very much he'd have been convicted, and I challenge anyone to dig up some Canadian precedent that specifically ruled otherwise.
Believe it or not, in Canada you're supposed to know every law. You can't say that you had no idea this law even existed.
Crazy but true
Ahh - but your analogy is flawed. The property you are modified is already a controlled substance - so the rights to modify it are subsumed by the right of the state to protect its citizens.
Same goes for other controlled or illegal substances. If you own a poppy field, you don't have the right to create opiates from them. If you own a rifle, you don't have the right to go shoot people with it, or modify its performance so that it falls into a restricted category.
Take your poor example elsewhere.
Considering how long it takes the legal system to do anything...
Infuriate left and right
I really want to get a mod chip for my xbox, so I can boot unsigned software. I want to be able to use it as an mp3 player, linux box, divx player, x terminal, etc.. I have plans!
So there are uses for mod chips, but pirating software? Hell, I live in the Seattle area, all the people at M$ get xbox games for 10 bux, I just have them get then for me. Why pirate?! (-;
I wonder if you owned all legal games, and a modded console, if a jury trial would find you not guilty. The FUD is so thick, its hard to tell what the un-slashdots would think.
It's kind of funny, they say "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
But the legal definition of insanity is "didn't know what they did was wrong".
So he should've plead innocent by reason of insanity. =)
If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
If someone is providing a service for a fee, you have the choice to pay for the service or forego it. Modifying anything to get the service without paying for it is called 'stealing'.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are illegal in their own right. Firearms, while legal, are regulated. Playstations are not, and are not illegal. The same argument applies to making illegal drugs, or perscription drugs without a license, or bombs. The final product is illegal. But unless it would be illegal for Sony to sell multi-region PS2s, it shouldn't be illegal for me to make one. Now, if I use that to steal games, that is another story entirely.
That explains it - if he had just been selling mod chips, he would have been fine. The fact that he was doing it along side of selling pirated games is why they could charge him because he "used a computer system to commit an offense"
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
"I didn't know robbing a bank was illegal. Welllll EXCUUUUUSE MEEEEEE!"
-Steve Martin, _Let's Get Small_
The property you are modified [sic] is already a controlled substance
Despite what some states (California comes to mind) and some congresscritters would have you believe, shotguns are not a "controlled substance". Even the paperwork involved in sale of same only applies to firearms dealers -- private sales are perfectly legal and require no background check. (Recall that BATF is a Treasury bureau, hence the love of paperwork. Even owning a machine gun isn't illegal, just requires a $200 tax certificate. At least, that used to be the case.)
And it really isn't at all clear what "the right of the state to protect its citizens" has to do with the difference between a shotgun barrel that's 18.1 inches long vs one that's 17.9 inches. (BTW, a state has no such rights. The citizens have rights of self protection, and may collectively authorize the state to act on their behalf.)
I don't have the right to smash somebody's skull in with a modified Playstation, either, but I do have the right to bolt a twenty pound steel plate to my Playstation, if I so choose.
-- Alastair
So what's the difference between modding a PS2 and modding a car?
If I pulled the engine from my Ford Ranger and replaced it with a Chevy 350, aren't I likewise depriving Ford Motor Company of future engine part sales? This is setting a bad precident.
Just out of curiousity, what is the distinction between selling mod'd PS/2 systems and selling, say, mod'd Nestle Chocolate Chips? If I combine Nestle Chocolate Chips with flour, sugar, butter etc to make cookies is Nestle going to come after me? Or is it ok because I'm selling them as cookies and not Nestle Chocolate Chips(tm)?
PS/2. Nestle. They're both just chips.
It is the moral right of the producer to dictate the terms under which his product is offered. You don't like the terms, you don't use the product. Simple as that.
It's not quite this simple because when you do things like region coding, you can run into anti-trust/anti-competition issues and international-trade violations.
Playstations are not [regulated]
Oh, but indeed they are. The FCC has a whole set of regulations covering consumer electronic devices and their possible RF emissions. You better believe that Sony has to file some serious paperwork with the FCC to get permission to sell the things. (Also with Underwriters Labs and the CSA regarding shock and fire hazards, but that's more of an insurance thing.)
Although I still believe you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you want to with your own property, so long as it doesn't actually (vs hypothetically) endanger others or trample on their rights.
-- Alastair
If Sony went and made games that people actualy /wanted/ to own long term, then pirating would not be such a problem.
:-D
:(
That and creating the whole atmsphere around the game, I remember my copy of Zelda, shipped with a nice color map and a manual with an actual backstory in it. Nifety cartridge to, gold, shiiiiny.
Dito goes for Final Fantasy (Monster Chart, Map, etc) and a lot of other good Nintendo games. But now days, *sighs* it seems like all the games are is the disc.
Of course a lot of the PS2 chippers are using them for Imports, which actualy BENEFITS Sony's sales since they almost always end up selling two copies of a game to the same person. . . . yeesh.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
There are two important differences here that will protect you from being Bubba's bitch for hopping up your CPU. First, the P/S2 is a proprietary machine, and SONY specifically states that modifications are verboten. There's nothing they can realistically do if you wish to modify it, but if you sell parts designed to modify it, you're in for it. Second, it's not "unauthorized" to overclock your CPU. Intel (and AMD) specifically state that if you do it and vaporize your CPU, they won't give you a new one, but they never specifically forbid overclocking, so you're not breaking the law by doing it.
Virg
This is not due to any existing law. Microsoft has pressured EBay to remove all auctions related to the sale of their products by TELLING them that it is illegal. EBay knows that it is much easier to simply comply with what Big Brother tells them than to argue about it. Hell, I would probably back down to, if I were them.
There is no definitive legal precedent supporting Microsoft's stance, in any case.
Wherever did you get that idea? If you had said "the LEGAL right", you still would have been wrong, but at least you would be closer. As for "morals", I fear you know very little about the subject, and you should consequently do some deep, personal thinking about it before you jump to such bizarre, unwarranted conclusions. I'm pretty sure that sellers do not possess "moral" rights of any sort, once a sale has been made.
The article is somewhat confusing in this matter. It mentions that he was selling pirated games, and the conviction seems to take that into account to some degree, but nothing else is said about the matter. The mod chip issue might be a bit of a grey area, but if he's selling pirated games, that's pretty black and white, and probably what had drawn attention to himself in the first place. I don't know the canadian laws in this matter. I don't even know the US laws regarding mod chips, so I'm going to present two possible scenarios here. Either the possession, sale, installation, or use of mod chips is illegal in and of itself, or sale of these chips with intent to commit another crime in the process (selling pirated games) is the actual crime.
Owning and possessing tools to assist in a burglary is not illegal if you are obeying the law. However, if you break into something or some place while in possession, there are extra charges that can be applied because of your possession of the otherwise legal tools. Same goes with possession of firearms during a robbery. The tools themselves may be legal as long as no crimes are being committed.
Just a thought
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
They did, at least, according to some story or another on Acts of Gord, a website written by a former video game store owner. I have had no chance to independently verify his information, but I trust him. Supposedly, there was a chip which would ONLY allow imports; not backups. Such a mod also definitely existed for the Sega Saturn, since defeating the region encoding required a separate device; defeating copy protection was much harder.
For the PS2, as it turned out, defeating the region encoding is FAR more difficult than defeating the copy protection. Only recently have there been any chips at all that allow the correct playing of import games (Origa, Messiah). My PS2 chip will only play a BACKUP of and IMPORT. How messed up is that? And it absolutely would not play my imported copy of Psyvariar CE, original or CDR. I had to sell it to someone else.
You would be surprised at how many of us there are that only want to play imports, and aren't interested in stealing. In my opinion, the fact that there are ANY of us far outweighs any illegitimate usage of these devices.
While we can all say that ignorance is not excuse the deeper point is, is there an actual law on the books about chipped machines and if so what does it say?
Someone for example can sell a kit to turn your AR-15 into full auto even though it is against the law to own a full auto M-16. We recognize the existence or non existence of certain laws is occasionally nonsense. So it may be entirely possible that a chipped PS2 is illegal and even owning a chip to do it but unless there is a law against specifically installing that chip in that box it might be technically legal.
You're confusing "power" and "right". Yes, the state has this power, even duty. It is based, however, on the rights of its citizens, and as such, the state ought not exercise such power at the expense of other rights of the citizens.
BTW, are you in a militia?
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but no.
Do you believe that might makes right?
-- Alastair
Mods on crack again...
The Book of Gord is the journal of a guy named Gord who runs a video game store. He details exploits of throwing customers out, thieves, liars, cheats, etc.. He sells mod chips for playing import games, so he could be arrested for this.
Oh ya, he's Canadian too.
This is HARDLY offtopic.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
It cost me $400 just to get a lawyer to make a phone call to the cops and plea bargain away a traffic ticket (a nasty one that would have gotten my driver's license revoked, so it was worth it).
Unless he had a public defender, I'd say he ate up the rest of that money just on legal fees.
Although, I am not a Canadian, so maybe their legal system works differently.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
The legal term to use in search engines is "First Sale Doctrine". Basically is says once you've sold something, you can't prevent someone from selling it again
Based on your description, you have a case for defense in fair use. If you chip your P/S2, make backups only of your own games, and never rent, sell or distribute those backups (or the originals while you use the backups), you're within the bounds of fair use. If you want to play imports, unfortunately you can't since that's not fair use in the legal sense, and you'd have to buy an imported P/S2 to do that.
Virg
Why should legitimate users of the technology be banned from using it simply because other people are using it incorrectly? Perhaps if Sony wants people to stop pirating things, they should work with the government to enforce the law (it is illegal to pirate software) against the perpetrators.
The industry has a completely moronic idea of what enforcement means. They want to round up a few (
The entertainment companies only look for the big fish. They nail some guy with 200 GB of MP3's on a p2p network, and throw the book at him. Your average file-swapper has a ridiculously small fraction of that amount of material; they know that they are relatively safe from enforcement; only the BIGGEST offenders ever get caught. Then, you have overly aggressive sentencing - the average file-swapper could never imagine being sent to prison for multiple years for doing something so seemingly harmless! The thought never even occurs to them!
What the industry should be pushing for is a system that enforces minimal sentences against a vast range of people. Copying a game and handing it to your buddy is a miniscule crime, with very, very tiny financial ramifications. The sentence, as such, should be a slap on the wrist. I would suggest a ticket and a small fine. ($50-$100). If everyone caught trading illegal copies of video games online was ticketed, every time, the amount of piracy occurring would drop sharply! Imagine some 13 year old kid getting nailed with a fine! His parents would kick his ass!
I don't have all of the details worked out, but needless to say, it is not at all difficult to find thousands of people trading illegal software/music/whatever online at any time of the day, and people smarter than I have already devised clever ways of obtaining their IP address. From there, it shouldn't be all that difficult to find someone, and levy a small fine. Many, many people would never trade software again.
And of course, the greatest benefit of all will be that you idiots will stop trying to imply that a TOOL needs to be outlawed because someone else did something illegal with it. I don't give a rat's ass about what some other guy did. That's not my job. If you don't like what they're doing, tell them about it.
You totally do NOT agree to that. My brother just bought a gamecube. He gave the store X dollars, they gave him a system. Pure sale. No license, nothing. It's his. If he wants to convert it into a fancy disco ball, that's his call. If he wants to rewire it so that the cds spin the wrong way, or fast enough to explode, his call.
Well, if you went into a Ford dealership, and they told you up front, "you can only have Ford owners for passengers", then you agreed, bought the Ford, and took your Nissan-driving mother out for a spin, you'd be violating the contract. That's what "...dictate the terms under which his product is offered" means. You could certainly opt not to buy a Ford, but if you agreed at the time of purchase, you'd be in legal hot water if you violated that agreement after the sale. In this case, SONY offers P/S2 systems to Americans on the stipulation that (A) it only plays games authorized to play on American P/S2s, and (B) you promise not to fuck with the innards. If you don't agree with those terms, you should buy a Gamecube. If you do, you give up the right to do what you want with it (legally, at least) when you hook it up. Perhaps it sucks, but that's the way the purchase agreement works. If you don't like it, tell them that with your dollars.
Virg
> Their ability to DICTATE to you ends as soon as you give them your money.
Not necessarily. See below.
> For any other sort of property, this is painfully obvious. Only for "artificial" property are restrictions such as these considered anything but absurd megalomaniacal fantasy.
Not true. Real estate is a perfect example. Let's say you're looking to buy a house. You find a nice one, and you sit down with the seller, who shows you the bylaws of the neighborhood. One of those bylaws is that you're not allowed to put a fence up in front of the house. Now, let's say you buy the house, move in, and put up a stockade in front of the house. What happens next? You can guess easily. This illustrates how a presale contract can affect your use of your own property after sale. In the case of the P/S2. the purchase agreement stipulates that you are not allowed to modify it. If you don't like that stipulation, the seller (SONY, in this case) has every right to tell you you can't buy a P/S2. Since you bought it, you (in a legal sense) agreed to be bound by that stipulation. If you then go home, shuck the case and chip it, you've violated that presale contract, and so you're liable for legal trouble. It's that simple. The answer to this, is, of course, not to buy the P/S2, and if enough people don't the profit hit will get them to rethink the contract. But that's the only legal recourse.
Virg
>Ignorance is not a permissible defense anyway.
In Ontario, Canada, for driving, it certainly can be.
Because snow here can cover all sorts of signs and road markings, during this period, if you do not have every road's speed memorized, your job is to ensure you drive under the default speed limit (getting to this in a moment) and you drive safely (ie: If the snow isn't cleared from the road, you'd better be doing 10 km/h or less).
In general, these are the limits in Canada unless otherwise marked (but IANAL, so please correct me):
- 15 km/h or less on semi-private roads
- 40 km/h or less in resdential zones
- 50 or 60 km/h or less on main streets (depends on the municipality)
- 80 km/h or less on country roads
- 90 km/h or less on all non-400 (or QEW) series highways/speed (unless marked)
- 100 km/h maximum on all 400 series / QEW highways.
Also note, I've been told by the occasional taxi driver that the lines on the road can often be regarded as "suggested" driving. However, this seems a little fishy to me and I wouldn't suggest you try this...
However, usually the only person who will excuse you for driving without seeing a sign/road marking is a police officer. You have no chance of getting it by a judge.
Just FYI...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
...that held your P/S2. The terms of use for the device say that you're not allowed to modify it, and if you don't agree to the terms of use (including this one) you should return it for a refund. That's called a "presale contract" in legal terms, and is quite sufficient to prove you broke the law (contract law, in this case). Your only legal recourse is to buy a Japanese P/S2 that'll play the games, or return your P/S2 to the store.
Sorry. I agree that it sucks, but that's the law.
Virg
Good to see that a government will protect a company's rights with criminal prosecution when it comes to intellectual property. I wonder how much money I'd have to have to get someone arrested for violating my individual rights?
_______
2B1ASK1
When you bought your car, you most likely did not agree to a "terms of use" contract, like you do when you buy a P/S2 (for a closer comparison, try opening the hood and putting your mods on a car you've leased, rather than bought, from the dealership). If you had, then modified the car in violation of that contract, you'd be breaking the law. If you think the terms of use for P/S2 are too restrictive, then don't buy one, and tell SONY why you didn't. That is, unfortunately, the only legal path you can take.
Virg
...but I'll say it again. Let's say I have a brick, and I tell you, "I'll sell you this brick, but only if you promise not to saw it in half." You agree, and I sell you the brick. Now, you own the brick, and you saw it in half. Since you gave your word not to do something, then did it, you have committed an act of dishonesty, which is morally unsupportable.
When you bought your P/S2, you agreed not to modify it (yes, legally you did, by using it). If you modify it, you're breaking that agreement. That is, by virtually everyone's definition, morally questionable.
Virg
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> If I own it I have a right to copy it, stomp on it, pee on it, sell it, modify it. It's mine, I own it, I do what I want with it. (emphasis mine)
You specifically gave up the right to modify it when you bought it. The terms of use agreement stipulates that you can't modify it, and by using the P/S2, you legally accepted those terms of use. Don't like it? Don't buy it. If enough people take this route, the terms will change. Until they do, however, you're legally (and morally, since violation of a contract is dishonesty in moral nomenclature) wrong to alter it.
Of course it sucks. But it's not bullshit.
Virg
There seems to be a vocal contingent on Slashdot that assume that anybody using DeCSS, Napster, Mod Chips, etc... must be pirates and should be thrown in jail. Even if there are legitimate uses for a technology the potental for abuse exists and therefore everyone who uses it is therefore guilty.
Yeah, yeah, everyone throws around this argument. But let's face the facts, there for every 1 parent is concerned about making legitimate backups, there are 50 kids pirating games.
And another 10 parents who want to make legitimate backups, but wouldn't mind making just one copy of their friends games. Just one or two games, that's not piracy right? And it's not really piracy to borrow a friends CDR backup of a game, is it? You could have gone directly to the friend of a friend of a friend of a friend who has the original, but of course it's just easier to borrow the backup which everyone has. Or make a backup yourself, it's just one copy you made, that's not really piracy...
Face it, mod chip technology enables piracy and piracy of PS games is pretty rampant out there. It would have been even greater had it not required a bit of soldering knowledge. Yeah, I'm all for backing up software, but if you call the manufacturer they will often send you a replacement if you send back the original damaged disc. Those serious about playing import discs buy import consoles as well. Really, those numbers are small; how many US mod-chippers out there read Japanese? Enough to support the mod-chip for imports theory? No. So really, the huge mod-chip market is driven by one group and one group only, those who pirate games. No, not everyone who mods is a pirate, but the vast majority are.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Yes, it's really that broad.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
You make more money, and you're never threatened with jail time.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
I think you're on the right track. I think Sony busted him on sale of pirated games and then twisted the details a bit (over-emphasizing mod chips) to make it sound like what the guy did was illegal. It's possible that the combination of selling pirated games and installing chips so they could be played is illegal, but I'm reasonbly certain that installing the mod chips by themselves is fine. (If Im wrong, please let me know. All I ask is that you be polite.)
To put it in simpler terms: Sony's manipulating the statement to make it look like a case that defines PS2 modding as illegal and enforcable. The reality is that what got the guy busted was selling copied games.
"Derp de derp."
> Your program is linking against Sony's code (the PS1's firmware). According to the FSF, this requires Sony's permission - at least, they say linking against other code requires that code's author's permission. (That's how the GPL bans non-GPL code calling GPLed libraries, unlike the LGPL...)
That's not right. The FSF says that distributing a combined work consisting of copyrighted code plus your code requires the permission of the copyright owner.
But there is no distribution of a combined work when you run your own software on a modded PS1.
Anyway, we already know that the copyright violation in this case was selling pirated games.
Doug Moen.
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
Your program is linking against Sony's code (the PS1's firmware).
Not necessarily. I could claim that my program is linking against an LGPL clone of the PSX BIOS. This is a common claim for homebrew Game Boy Advance software, as most GBA emulators re-implement BIOS functions.
According to the FSF, this requires Sony's permission
You don't need permission from IBM to link against the PC BIOS. You don't need permission from Sun Microsystems to link against the C library included with the Solaris(TM) operating environment. You don't need permission from Microsoft to link against msvcrt.dll; otherwise, 90% of third party Windows software would violate Microsoft's copyright on the Windows OS.
Will I retire or break 10K?
> I hope he get raped in the anus by a big gay black dude.
Totally dude.. because rape and Playstation game piracy are of equal weight.
Dewey Wins!
:)
It may not be a crime, but it's criminal...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
When you get a P/S 1 (or 2) you agree (like it or not) not to reverse engineer or modify the device, and since it's a proprietary machine they can say that.
Could have, but didn't. I didn't see such a notice outside the box of my PS1 console, which I bought with cash a couple months before Dual Shock came out. I also didn't see such a notice inside the box.
Imagine if FF9 had been written and published for P/S2 [sic]
IBM PS/2 (slash) != Sony PS2 (no slash). Unless FF9 for PS/2 were to require a dongle that fit on the PS/2's MCA bus, it would run on every existing PC, through Bochs if nothing else.
Will I retire or break 10K?
No one served any jailtime here. If the poster / headline writer would have taken half a minute to read the article, they would know this. The defendant was sentenced to a year of probation, there was no mention of jail.
Catchy lies in a headline are still lies. Get some integrity Slashdot.
He probably won't get anally raped on probation.
RTFA.
Virg
> Selling a part that can be used to modify a PS/2 and actually modifying it are two very different things.
They are, but since he was doing both, I can't see why that matters here.
P/S2, by the way. PS/2 is an IBM PC. 8)
Virg
Check the manual, which is where the person I know who owns it claims to have seen it. It's also on the SONY web site, for what that's worth.
Second, don't be jiggedy. I didn't say PS/2 (the IBM thing). I said P/S2, which, while perhaps unorthodox, is not inaccurate. No, really. 8)
Virg
> Why is that not fair use?
Because you have to modify the machine to do it. Go figure why that's different from modifying the machine to make backups. And yes, it sucks. If you're American, thank you congress for taking such good care of your multinationals for you.
Virg
It's inside, but it states that you can return it for a refund if you don't like it. Good luck trying, but that's what it says.
Virg
> I bought physical property, which i may use however i like. I don't really care if they include a paper that says i can't do this or that with it.
I hate to be blunt, but the law doesn't concern itself with whether you care about that piece of paper, only whether it exists. You'll end up with your "Bull" in court, as proven by this guy.
Virg
pbptbp. That's a bummer. Hmm... wait, does the DMCA apply to the guy who installs it, the guy who pays to have it installed, or the company that makes the chip?
Mixture of all 3?
"Derp de derp."
First off, well spoken. You answered in a very organized and cool fashion. That's unusual here, when stuff like this comes up. That said, there are a few points that I want to respond to:
> Personally, I find such licensing schemes to be morally reprehensible.
As do I. Would that the courts agreed.
> In the U.S., the right to reverse engineer is legally sanctioned and assured.
Chipping a P/S2 is not reverse engineering, it's modifying. Take note that the law addresses these things separately (that's why the two terms are separated in most EULAs).
> The property management company broke the law by failing to repair air conditioning in the apartment in a timely fashion (AC is considered an essential service in Arizona by law), and although they had a clause in the lease agreement that "excused" the company from liability if they were unable to perform a repair in a timely fashion, the law took precedence over the contract, and I was vindicated.
This isn't exactly the same, since (despite what many of my friends say) the P/S2 isn't usually considered an "essential service". Also, there are no laws currently in place that specifically allow hardware modifications to the P/S2, so it's not the same as signing a contract that takes away rights explicitly granted, which is what happened with your lease.
> If I buy a piece of hardware in the United States, I can do whatever I want to it...
Well, here's where it turns grey. It's easy to say that, but not so easy to defend it in court. For example, this guy got fined for selling the mod chips themselves and installing them in customers' machines. In this case, he didn't buy the hardware, so where does the line fall? If you modify your own machine, it's fairly easy to claim fair use. This becomes much harder when people are paying you to break contract for them.
> All the more reason for me to enjoy being a U.S. citizen (until such time as the laws here are modified by corporate interests).
They're gonna pull your Slashdot account. Have you not heard of the DMCA? It applies to hardware as well as software.
Virg
BTW, are you in a militia?
Yes.
So are you.
(Unless you're crippled or a child.)
A "militia" is "every ablebodied [adult person] with [whatever weapon he/she owns, can borrow, can make, or can steal from the enemy]".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are illegal in their own right.
No, they're not. They're just heavily taxed.
And the tax is collected by the same bureau of yahoos who collect the tax on liquor from the citizens of, for instance, West Virginia.
You saw examples of their tax collection tactics at a (primarily non-white) church in Waco, Texas and a mountain man's house on Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yes, and if I used Play-Doh to make a functioning fully-automatic weapon, that would also be illegal. It's the end result that is illegal, not the means.
Same way in the US.
Which is ironic as someone mentioned because one of the definitions of insanity as a criminal defense is that you don't comprehend that what you were doing was wrong or against the law.
In the case of this guy, though, he HAD to know that selling pirated copies of over 400 games was illegal, I don't think you could really plead ignorance to that.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
When you get a P/S 1 (or 2) you agree (like it or not) not to reverse engineer or modify the device, and since it's a proprietary machine they can say that.
Simply being a "proprietary machine" is in itself meaningless. There needs to be an actual basis in law for such a condition.
When you put in the interop chip, you've violated their license agreement, and so you're no longer authorized to use the device.
The person doing the modification in this case was not using the device. Also we are talking about something which is sold as an appliance. Conceptually what's going on is little different from someone selling washing machines with the length of the spin cycle modified at the customers' request.
The mod chip allows users to play pirate games, but it also allows users to play games for which SONY has received no licensing fees. Imagine if FF9 had been written and published for P/S2, but SONY didn't get their piece of every disk's price to put their seal of approval on it. They're doing this to defend their revenue stream for the games.
This is a creative way to justify what amounts to corporate welfare. By this kind of argument every radio station should be paying Marconi's estate.
Oh come on. If you buy a cable box, and hack it to decrypt content you haven't paid for, that's supposed to be OK?
Assuming it is actually your box and not one you rent.
The only thing that is reasonable is that the "artificial property" of the authors in question is not reproduced without their permission. Even this is only a special case rule that is put in place to further a particular (and well defined) public policy objective.
An objective which whilst it might be well defined appears to be quite often ignored.
It's the end result that is illegal, not the means.
You wish. The BATF has taken people to court, and won, over merely possessing the equipment with which to manufacture certain weapons. In there eyes, and in the eyes of at least one federal judge, possession of a shotgun and a hacksaw is the same thing as owning a sawed-off shotgun.
If BATF believed you could make a fully-automatic weapon with Play-Doh, and found you in the possession of a quantity of Play-Doh, they'd bust your butt.
-- Alastair
Sorry, buddy, there's no law that supports region encoding. You should modify the "Wrong:" part of your post in future postings. Sony, or any manufacturer, has no right, legally, morally, or whateverally to tell you what you can or can not do with your console. In case you hadn't noticed, software piracy is ALREADY illegal, so it makes the idea that Sony should be able to dictate to people kind of redundant.
Seriously. Look it up. There is NO LAW WHATSOEVER against importing. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Sorry.
WRONG: You buy a PS2 from a local dealer, who charges you a fat fee to install a mod chip in your new PS2 (He profits from this activity).
How is that wrong, assuming you knew you were buying the playstation as is and used, not new from sony? Who cares if he profits because he can solder better than i can? There is nothing wrong with modding a playstation. He was arrested for violating copyright law.
Yes, but don't these regulations mostly apply to the SALE of consumer electronic devices? Obviously if I do a mod to a device that starts broadcasting enough interference to distrub the neighbors, the FCC should come knocking on my door... but we're talking mw of current with most chips.
Now, if I go to re-sell my modded Playstation, it's true that it can no longer be FCC certified, but then it's MY responsibility to point that out.
Being that I *OWN* the hardware, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, as long as no results of that process leave my property.
As far as cable boxes go (which many people have used for comparison).. if I'm leasing it from the cable company (usually the case), I can't do anything other than use it.. it's not mine. If I go out and BUY one that works, I can go ahead and mod that all I want. That's not illegal. What IS illegal is if I then USE that device to watch programs that I'm not paying for.
By the same token, whatever Sony may claim, it's perfectly legal for me to modify my PS or PS2... it only becomes illegal when I then use it to play pirated games (or watch pirated DVD's).
The car example is much better... it's not illegal for me to modify my car and take all the speed governers off... but if I drive that fast, I'm breaking a totally unrelated law.
hey, how's it my fault the build the cases out of such crappy plastic. if they care so much about me chiping them, just build the cases better!
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
> Don't Be Absurd
Demonstrating a lack of civility is no way to gain respect for yourself, or your ideas.
> If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
Another way to look at it is: you have a RIGHT to swing your fist, but that right ENDS when it touches MY nose, and does not overrule my right to be free from harm.
One could attempt to argue that they had a "right" to pollute land they own, but *I* certainly would not make this arguement! Your right to modify your land ends at your neighbor's right to a clean water table, and air. Furthermore, land is universally considered to be a fundamentally different kind of property than automobiles, Playstations, etc. Like it or not, your land is TERRITORY of the nation you are subject to, and so there are many who might to object -- even if you do not -- to your deliberately poisoning the soil.
If you were trying to make some "greater" point, that point was lost. Distortion is hardly going to convince anyone besides yourself.
Several points:
1.) Doctrine of First Sale doesn't directly apply to this case. That rule says that SONY can't forbid you to put the whole thing back in the box and sell it to someone else. Modifying it is not covered by DFS.
2.) It's legal to establish rules of use after sale as long as those rules are set before sale (they put the card in the box and don't regularly replace it with a new one) and you are allowed to withdraw (in this case, to return the device for a refund).
3.) The cost of the device is immaterial to the method of contract. You can enter into a verbal contract to buy a house. It's not a good idea, but it's perfectly legal. In this case, the terms of use state that you must agree (among other things) not to modify it, and your use of the device constitutes your acceptance of the terms. If you don't agree, you're supposed to opt out of the agreement, which means take it back to the store and get your money back. Since you're (presumably) using your Playstation, you've agreed to the terms, legally. Whether these terms are enforceable remains to be seen, but at least in Canada, this case points towards the legality of this contract, and in the U.S., credit card companies have successfully used this contract tactic so it's certainly likely that a court will accept it.
Virg
> So? It doesn't matter what the manual or the website says. What matters is what is legally enforcable, and a "please don't do this" in a manual is not.
What exactly makes you say that their request (which isn't actually a request but a term of use) isn't legally enforceable? Credit card companies do it constantly, and every case brought against them for it to date has been dismissed or lost. There have been few cases where shrinkwrap terms of use have been tested in court, but despite what you hear on Slashdot, that doesn't mean that every presale terms-of-use contract is invalid. In fact, most of them are considered valid from a legal standpoint, and this case sets precedent (for Canadians) that these contracts are very much enforceable.
Virg
But for some crazy reason, since your stuff is on a CD, suddenly you think you have the right to identical duplicate copies, as many as you want?
I'm sorry, but the crap idea that I should have to buy a new CD just because the one I have stopped working totally violates my fair usage rights. A right to personal backups was already won in the court of law, and it is a right that was used to defend the use of "Dual Casette Recorders".
Your argument is just plain stupid, and is complete proof that you don't mind losing your rights.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Here's a Civics lesson: the two ways to change a law are to change it governmentally (lobby and boycott and get petitions and vote and such) or break it in a big, public way to draw attention to yourself (and, in the process, the bad law).
What you're doing is neither of those things. You're protesting a law by pretending that it doesn't exist (or doesn't matter), which is foolish, childish, and prone to prosecution.
Blow off all you want about how the law doesn't matter, but keep your Civics rants to yourself until you grow up. Good citizens fight unjust laws, but they do it properly.
Virg
> Are you a lawyer? I'm almost 100% certain your point 3 is totally wrong. In most area's certain purchases (in this area, I believe anything over $500) have to be in writing.
Cite the statute if it's there, but don't guess. There is no such statute where I live.
> Sure if you had 100000 cash and wanted to buy a house, i doubt anyone would argue with you, but still legally it has to be in writing..
Again, if you can prove this, do so with citation. The sale of real estate has to be registered in my state, but the contract of sale itself can be verbal as long as the transfer of deed is filed correctly.
> If you walk into a store and pick up a box and buy it, its yours. Thats just how it is, no amount of legalese inside the box can prohibit you from doing anything with it.
For the third time, citations, please. If you can't show me where the terms-of-use agreement is overridden by some other law, then you're guessing, and guessing wrong. Terms of use have been successfully defended in court, both in the U.S. and in Canada, and this case itself demonstrates the enforceability of that fact. Prove otherwise, or I'll have to say you're wrong.
> If perhaps the seller has you sign a contract before selling you the item, then you are bound to it, but if they just sell you a box with something in it no questions asked, the same way you buy peanut butter and the grocery store, you aren't held to anything.
But I've never bought a grocery store like that... 8) Anyway, you're mistaken, because there is a contract. There's no physical signature, but if you think that's a requirement for a transaction or contract, buy gas at a pay-at-the-pump station, then refuse to pay the bill, and see how long it takes the court order to show up. Your use of the device is your agreement.
> You can take it home and use it as its intended or use it to pound nails or use it to collect rain water if you want.
Irrelevant comment. You're talking about intentional misuse, and I'm talking about modifying the device. The first is not mentioned in the terms of use, and the second is specifically forbidden.
> If I buy a car and put a cd player in it that it didn't ship with and sell it my friend down the street, ford can't do dick about it.
That's because Ford didn't make you agree to any terms of use involving aftermarket CD players when you bought the car (so you can modify it if you like) and there are no legal restrictions on reselling the car.
> The same is true if I buy a playstation and put some extra chips in an sell it. It might piss sony off, but the worst its done is void the warranty.
Incorrect, because Sony did make you agree to terms of use involving aftermarket chipsets. You can say as many times as you like that Sony has no right to enforce (or even establish) such a contract, but you'll continue to be wrong.
> Where you can get in trouble with the govt by mass selling these things installed is that the device hasn't been fcc tested or whatever the relevant canadian authority is, so you are selling unapproved computer hardware, which is what a couple of the guys charges were.
You're quite right that FCC (I think it's Industry Canada that has jurisdiction for this up there) regulations can get you in legal trouble, but that's in addition to the trouble you're buying for breach of contract. The case against the fellow in Canada was pressed on "unapproved hardware" grounds because the government can't charge someone directly with breach of contract unless they're a participant. Sony would have to press that case.
Virg
> If you don't sign something (hell, the playstation doesn't even have a "click here to agree"), you can't be bound to it.
Try this logic out by going to a self-service, pay at the pump gas station. Use your card to gas up, and note that you need not agree to anything at all (not even a "push this button to agree") to use your credit card. Now, since you didn't sign anything, you're not bound by the agreement to pay the bill! Isn't that great? Go out and spend that money on a drink for figuring out such a great way around contract law! Just remember to put a little away to bail yourself out.
You agreed to be bound when you used the device. If it had a restriction against using it from 2 AM to 5 AM, you'd be breaking the contract by doing so. Now, that particular restriction would get a real thrashing in court, but your vaunted freedom from the "don't modify" part of it has already been shot down in court, so you're treading on very thin ice, in a legal sense, to say that it's unenforceable. Others have said the same, and got their proverbial heads handed to them (along with monetary judgements against them) in the real world.
Virg
Okay, I confess that it's a hyperextended example, but do I really have to provide evidence that a signature is not required to legalize a contract? To take the same example without overreaching at all, drive up to a full service station, and ask the attendant to fill the tank. When he's done, can you say, "since I didn't sign any contract for the sale of the gas, I don't have to pay" to him? You can say that that's not the same as buying your Playstation, but it's not different in a legal sense. Most universities have statements published that state that staff are not allowed to enter into agreements, including verbal contracts on behalf of the university without prior consent of the university board, which means they've accepted the legality and enforceability of unsigned contracts.
The point of this whole discussion is that you assert that the terms of sale for your Playstation are legally unenforceable, but you make that assertion without any legal backing or citation. Since lawcrawler.findlaw.com gets many hits on cases where ToS agreements are indeed successfully enforced, the burden falls to you to prove why you think that they're not valid. Present some citations or cases or anything that would back up your assertion. If it's so obvious, it should be relatively easy to prove through case precedent, no?
Virg
I'll keep exercising my right to self expression
Enjoy that one while it lasts. When they over-turn Fair-Use, you're freedom of expression will soon follow.
I fully understand the need for copyright laws, but here's the basis for my fair use argument.
When I purchase some form of information on a media, I'm normally told I'm not "Buying the media, I'm buying the right to use/have access to/perceive/whatever" the information contained.
That being said, if I buy a CD, I've paid for my right to listen to it. If I wish to transfer it to a casette tape, my computer (as MP3), or to my MP3 car stereo, why has my right to listen to it suddenly disappeared?
The media, in this case, a CD (though it could very well be anything) is not what I purchased. I purchased the "RIGHT". These were the arguments the recording industry (as well as everyone else) has been screaming for years. In fact the very people out to protect their "copyrights" have been INSISTING upon this for years. Now, suddenly, when it's no longer convinient for them to do so, they want to do a 180 and take away my right to access the content and instead shift my ownership over to the medium it's self. In fact, they would like nothing more than they set things up so that everytime I listened to a song or read a book I had to pay. (DivX tried to do this with movies but failed.)
Okay, so I don't own rights anymore, and I just own the media once again. Okay. I could almost swallow this... except... CDs were SUPPOSED to be superior, yet a hairline scratch can ruin an entire disc (which oddly enough is an inconsistant occurance since I've got CDs I couldn't give a damned about covered in gashing marks that still play flawlessly - but that is beside the point). And while it's not reasonable to assume that a CD should be able to surive torture, it IS more than reasonable to expect a CD to withstand minor things such as accidently putting a tiny scratch in it, or accidently dropping it on the basement floor, or or or any number of other things that don't damage other things, such as books. (Too bad I don't read music, huh?)
Also, why should I be forced to change between 10 different CDs. I don't have a CD changer in my car, and I'd be rather peeved at the music industry if they told me I had to get one in order to have some music variety. I should very much so have the right to select and arrange the music I wish to hear.
Thus I burn my discs. These rights are common sense things that the law should in no way be able to take away from me. While I agree the rights of the artists to own and profit from their work definately hold important, the general public's right to do what they want with the things they've paid for is even more so important. (Here's a concept -- Copyright owners are ALSO copyright consumers...)
If you don't agree with that, then you're going to be perfectly happy in 1984.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.