Slashdot Mirror
Sony 'Anti-Used Game' Patent Explored
Sometime in 2000, Sony patented a process that would 'verify a disc as legitimate, register the disc to that particular game console, then wipe out verification data so the disc would be rendered unreadable in other PlayStations'. Despite unrest in the gaming community over this technology, the company has repeatedly stated they have no plans to use it in the PS3. The LA Times explores this persistent debate, examining why Sony developed the tech and why gamers are nervous. From the article: "Whatever Sony's plans, the tempest [over the patent] illustrates the changing nature of ownership as millions of people accumulate vast collections of digital entertainment. Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection." Thanks to 1up.com for the link.
Maybe because this completely kills the rental business? I for one haven't bought a game in a long time, but I have rented a few...
If they implement any of this, it will be another win for the Wii.
which i might say makes me very happy ^^ as there is nothing i would rather see than Sony dying a slow painful death, and this is from someone who 5 years ago, bought a "luxury" sony discman. Just goes to show their decline.
MikMik Baby Organics Mikkaworks
From the summary: "Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. " Well, duh. Staying current on ever-shifting rules is virtually impossible.
And, lest any defenders of "paying for license" jump in, the rules whether they be the actual rules themselves, or how the providers are choosing to enforce them are shifting.
If in fact in the past they really did sell only the license to play, watch, etc., there was a wink and a nod for those who owned the games should they choose to sell their games at some point. Now under increasing pressures to maximize profits every stone is being turned for ways to eke out more profits.
The electronics industry is seemingly insane with their obsession to beat down their consumers. Case in point, we just upgraded all of our cell phones, none of the really worked that well, and the only real options included cell phones with camera builtin.
We did have a blast the first day with the phones, and even found a couple of trick ways to get our own customized dial tones to the phones without paying for downloads. But, aha, Verizon was on to those tricks, didn't mention the surcharge for sending pictures to each other (actually they at least strongly implied within the "plan" we could send pictures back and forth free ad nauseum), and we found lots of nasty little extra charges to the tune of ~$20 ... all within the one
week pro-rated new-phone period.
This was such an annoying and unexpected treatment, we've all pretty much retired the cameras for any use at all... Too bad, it was kind of fun, and I'd have been willing to even look at pricing plans, had they not sucked me in without any heads up.
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty. Ninety-nine percent of them will treat you with money! (The other one percent you really don't (or shouldn't) give a shit about anyway.)
With the noise going up over the PS3, I think Sony realized that if they included this feature, they'd be utterly doomed. Even fanboys would go out and get Wiis/360s.
Perhaps it is time to rethink the current legal method of digital ownership. Copyright laws, even the most current ones that lawyers attempt to enforce still are based on earlier, non-digital cases.
While precedent has its place, maybe it isn't the best method of deriving new laws.
what happens if my playstation dies and I buy a new one? Do I get free replacement disks, or do I go buy a console that isn't a slot machine for games?
Didn't Sega do the same thing with the Original Phantasy Star Online for the ill-fated Dreamcast?
With the overheating and lens problems of the 1st and 2nd generation consoles from Sony, doing this could and probably would become their worst public relations nightmare. Also cant forget homes with more than one console, I have had 2 ps2's in the house at one time, and still have two GC's one for the kids and one for me, do they really expect me to buy two copies? They might as well have labeled this one "Patent For Future Class Action Suit". Of course I would love to see them try it, since a good bitchslap has been months overdue for them. I give 2 weeks after release before the first lawsuit fly.
What happens when your console explodes? You have to rebuy all of your games? Not only will this pissoff Gamefly and the like, but I can't imagine developers would be too happy about it. It's like parking your brand new car in the garage at home and then only being able to park it there for ever and ever. Even if your house falls over and your garage burns down. Now all they need is consoles that only let their owners play on them... Thumbprint please. Thank you, Billy, you may play now. How many feet does Sony have to shoot itself in?
No. Absolutely wrong.
When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing. You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased. Thus, the lack of EULAs on console games, works on DVDs, music on CDs, novels, and even the L.A. Times itself. The reason it's illegal to make and distribute copies isn't that you somehow agreed to some license. The reason is that copyright specifically denies you that right.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
There are about four more months until the PS3 hits the shelves and Zonk Microsoft's prime FUDster is running out of material.
The $499 PS3:
1080p BluRay movies over component
BluRay Live support - additional dynamic content updates and information for movies
DNLA compliance - http://www.dlna.org/home/
1080p Games over component
Free online play for all non-MMORPG titles - confirmed over and over again by Sony
Full backwards compatibility for all PS1 titles
Full backwards compatiblity for all PS2 titles - PS2 chips included in the PS3
Linux
Online movie and music store
Webbrowsing and other desktop apps
Tilt controller
Every single developer that supported the PS2 onboard with their games for the PS3
All parts of the system except the HDMI port are upgradeable
Harddrive upgradeable with stadard store bought drives
All PS3 games are going to be region free.
For 100 dollars more you get:
60 gig harddrive
WiFi
HDMI
The anti-PS3 FUD isn't even fun anymore. It has become boring.
I don't get why the bothered patenting this, they will not, and could not, use it. People would leave the company and it would die instantly. going round to a mates house "oh, I got this ace game, but my PS3 is too big to carry with me and it won't play on yours... but we can look at the box". Not only that second hand games are a great source of revenue (despite what some people think). Over the last 2 days I've traded in about 6 games and bought two new ones, one itself was second hand (metriod DS) the other was new (new mario DS). So nintendo has really won because they get a sale they otherwise wouldn't have had and when I eventually trade in metriod/mario I might buy another new game... the market keeps going. They might not make as much money because people aren't always buying from them, but for me, if I didn't do that they wouldn't have got anything. Besides, I'm now going to buy a Ninty Wifi adapter for my DS so I can play online (even though it doesn't work on linux) so they will get even more money.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Would some sort of hack to bypass the check/overwrite be possible. I realize that we have no example to work on, but I highly suspect that if Sony were to put this in a console, it would get bypassed in no time.
Isn't the virtual console a big part of Wii? And aren't virtual console games downloaded instead of bought on disc? And do you think there's any chance of buying, selling, or renting used virtual console games?
What if my playstation burst in flames... and I need to get a new one?
Will I need to buy new discs for every games I own?
And what about bringing my games along with me at a friend's place, for a gaming evening on his machine?
"Fair use" anyone?
$600 for the PS3 and $70 per game, and now when my system dies in a year I have to buy it all again?
The article is incorrect.
In ordinary transactions, when you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you buy it outright, you do not license it. Software is the only area in which licenses in
such transactions are really known. Even there, there is lively debate in the legal community as to whether or not the licenses are actually in effect. Cases
have gone both ways on the software issue.
Remember, a license is either implied or express, and if express, either oral or written. In these kinds of transactions, they'd pretty much have to be express
and written. They would resemble software EULAs in their content, length, and visibility. I have a lot of DVDs and a lot of CDs. I've never seen licenses in any
of them. Note that a (typically exaggerated or inaccurate) statement of law such as 'public performance is prohibited' (see 17 USC 106 for the law that says so)
is not a license. If you download music in some lawful fashion -- from iTunes, for example -- then you're likely doing so pursuant to a license agreement that
would've been quite prominent. This is necessary since downloading is reproduction, and would otherwise infringe. Implied licenses exist for works that are put
up on web sites authorizedly.
I also would point out that the article is wrong when it says that it's illegal to sell used music. It is perfectly legal and quite commonplace. Caselaw and 17
USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.
Frankly, if this is the caliber of their reporting on these issues, I wouldn't bother wrapping fish with their paper.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
When I buy a game, I buy a license to use that game. This license allows me to access the content using one of the defined accessing devices (i.e. game consoles).
Does the license dictate that I can only access it using a single specific console? Can the license dictate it? If it does not, am I entitled to getting additional media (since, quite obviously, it does not play on any access devices save a single one)?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right. If I'm buying this license, I feel I should be entitled to my purchase for the duration of my life. I had my car broken into twice in 6 months, losing tons of CDs. I should be able, as a licensee, to receive a replacement copy of all those CDs.
When you buy a copyright protected item, you own that particular thing.
That particular instance of that thing, yes. If you buy a copy of a book, you own that paper and ink and binding glue.
You need zero license to make standard use of that particular thing you purchased.
You need zero license to make NON-standard use of that thing either, as long as that use is legal. You can run your brand new copy of "The Da Vinci Code" through a crosscut shredder and use it as confetti, if you like. In fact, I recommend this.
The only things you CAN'T do by law with a purchased copy of a copyrighted work are those actions expressly forbidden by the copyright law.
Like many anti-sony people, you make the common mistake of thinking the base console price is $600 when in fact it is $500. That's already a lot of money, why inflate the figure arbitrarily? It just makes people suspect the rest of whatever you are talking about is similarily inaccurate or ill-considered. Basically the $600 is a "fanboy flag" that marks you as being anti-Sony out of the gate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And the right of first sale has been upheld repeatedly to grant you the right to sell your book - although converting it to confeti might make it a derivative work in which case it's not legal.... Unless it's a parody of the work at that point... ... I'll go kill some pixels before they start liscencing the images so I can only view them once....
My brain hurts now
First of all, no way Sony is going to implement this so let's get over that now. They had the tech before the PS2 and PSP, if they were going to do it they would have done it. Besides it would be suicide for the PS3. It would seem Microsoft would be all over Sony to license this tech with rampant piracy of their software, OS, etc. Heck I don't think anybody I knew in college had an "authentic" copy of Microsoft Office. We got our hands on the disc and just copied it or passed it around to whoever needed it. This tech would have definitely put an end to that.
1: Because more games will be sold due to the inability to share games with your friends, and the ending of the Used Game market, game manufacturers and sellers can reduce prices and still make the same profits. In addition, the lower prices will further increase sales as they induce people to try games they would not have purchased before due to the lower prices. The risk of a bad game experience is reduced when the price is lower.
2: The prices should be reduced because the value of the game is now correspondingly less. Before a game had residual value after you were done with it. You could sell or trade it for a game you hadn't played yet. With this reduction in value of the new games, they should be priced less because you're getting less.
Sure, yeah, right -- greedy bastards!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
White Cloud has all those shiny happy profits, because (sure enough!), you just don't re-use their products. I think Sony is in the wrong business. I know with this news, I'd not consider a Sony console without making sure that there is some sort of reliable backup to keep the media safe from being vandalized in this fashion when it is the console.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Slow news week for consoles? WHy not dredge up an older anti-Sony story - no need to worry about it being killed already by Sony previously saying they wouldn't make use of this technique. Bring it up again so that people will THINK they will!
It's all about the FUD and this is the minimum weekly dose.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
From the article:
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
The fact that you're buying a license in many circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of whether copying violates copyright law. A simple analogy should explain it:
When I buy a book, I am buying the book, not simply a license to read the book. However, because the book is copyrighted, I do not have a right to make copies of the book because the work is copyrighted.
It's that simple. A license for software (or music or a movie) usually takes away rights you would have had if you had just purchased outright a copy of the software. But the right to make copies is not one of those rights, because you never had that right anyway.
Why this is an issue at all is because Sony simply isn't trusted any more by just about everybody! We don't believe what they say they'll do, that they'll keep any promises that don't have their feet held to the fire, or that they won't try to screw us out of every list dime (pence, lira, yen, won...) in our pockets. That's why this is an issue despite any and everything Sony says to the contrary.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So, nobody thinks that this might be used for developmental purposes or beta testing? Perhaps for developmental systems (and software for a dev machine) or for beta testing? That's always been my first guess on what the purpose of this was.
That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
This is inherently not true. Otherwise, garage sales, individual sales and even medium sized business sales would be illegal. Pawn shops, and record shops who, I garuntee do not pay royalties to noone on resale of digital content (whether it be a game medium or CD/DVD). For the price they buy it from the customers, it's often more expensive to download the CD (even on 'illegal' networks) than the return on selling one to a pawn shop (you might get a 0.25 cents from a pawn shop).
There is nothing illegal about me selling my Metallica Master of Puppets CD to a friend; in contrast, there's nothing illegal about me giving it to him either. There's nothing illegal about me buying a CD, and throwing it in the trash (to imply that the whole idea of 'you only get a license' is BS, becuase you OWN a physical peace of merchandise. In contrast, when you finance a car, the bank OWNs the car, and they have legal right to REPOSESS the car in the case of non-payment. Record companies have NO right to reposess a CD from any individual who has purchased one, so ownership of that property is more than just a license grant.)
ARGH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Sorry for posting as AC, just needed to shoot this in, before too many folks forgot about this.
That's pretty-much exactly what I thought.
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
The day that that happens, is the day I stop buying copyrighted works and start planning a revolution instead.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The Nintendo Wi-Fi Connect system identifies gamers via Friend Codes. These codes are generated as a function of the game card's unique serial number and the DS's unique serial number (likely the MAC address). If you try to use the same game card in two different DSes, say moving from a regular DS to a DS Lite, you will wind up with a new Friend Code and be unable to use the old one (as a game card cannot be tied to more than one DS at a time).
It's a similar mechanism with the notable and welcome difference that buying the game doesn't lock you into the game for all of eternity; conversely, people who want to buy the game aren't screwed if they choose to save a few bucks and line EB's pockets.
Still, with all the "nothing should impede used games" FUD that Slashdot spreads, I'm surprised that nobody's bitching Nintendo out for minimizing piracy while still ensuring fair use rights.
The usual disclaimers: I own a DS and not a PSP. I'm OK with DRM that doesn't actively screw me over because nine times out of ten when I buy something without a physical medium, I mean to keep it (and the DRMed things I do buy, I do keep); it's called a compromise, learn it use it love it. I believe game makers have to choose: physical medium or DRM, one or the other, not both. I realize that admitting being a mild Nintendo fanboy doesn't excuse it; but I'm not calling Nintendo out, just the anti-DRM fanboys. Mod me a troll if you want, but I want to know why nobody's raised a fit about the DS weak DRM yet? After all, DRM = always bad, right? Or maybe, just maybe, that whole "compromise" thing might just make sense?
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
"Whatever Sony's plans, the tempest [over the patent] illustrates the changing nature of ownership as millions of people accumulate vast collections of digital entertainment. Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
Well, that's what the media monopolies claim you're buying. The courts haven't agreed that this is binding on the buyer, and since even their own ads say "own it on dvd", not "license it on dvd" they might not. If they do find in favor of the media monopolies, you will be unable to sell even your original copies of purchased media because the license will be "non-transferable". The law of First Sale prohibits this kind of crap for standard purchases (which is why they're using this 'license to access' method). But it is/were true, since I'm buying an license to listen/watch it would seem to undercut their legal basis for controlling what carrier I listen/watch it on.
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement. Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.
A license can dictate that, but a sale cannot. You didn't buy a licence, for a license is a contract. You picked up a box, put it on the counter (real or virtual) and exchanged money for an object. You can do what you damned well please with it (provided it doesn't violate any other laws).
The digital realm has offered companies the opportunity to claim that you are only licensing the content, not purchasing a product. That's a legal battle yet to be fought, but given the dollars and players involved, I foresee first sale doctrine being nullified - at least for all digital works - within the next decade.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I am not only out the what, $1000 console, but also the games worth hundreds or thousands of dollars? This sounds line the grounds for a whale of a law suit, but of cource, that leaves the consumers screwed and a dirtbag^^^^^^^lawyer rich...
When I buy a music CD, I am buying a physical product, not a lease. I exchange my money for a physical product, and it becomes mine. I also have the right to make a working copy of that particular CD, and resell it as it is a physical product which I legally own.
There is no lease, so quit trying to propogate that kind of bullshit.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.
No, but you do have to gain something. Even if you do sign it in ink, it's not a contract without that.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
You buy a license to play the content bound to the medium. When the medium dies ... well tough luck. Even though the current copyright law allows you to make a backup copy, you apparently wave that right when accepting the license...
The Raven
We here at Sony have no plans for being evil or for implementing this technology. We are merely exploring the technology of being evil for academic and esthetic reasons. Do we look like the kind of company that would use technology against our own customers? Don't worry about this. You should only worry about digital rights management if you actually have any digital rights, and you don't.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
This would never work in the real world. For one thing no console lasts forever. So what happens when your console dies past warranty. You would have to buy all new games. Something no consumer would take. i can see the millions in lawsuits now. Secondly renting does help the game industry as does loaning games to friends. I have rented/borrowed games I would never have bought only to find out I loved the game. I then went and bought the game. Thir its just a dumb idea and no matter how dumb Sony gets I can't see anyone being this stupid. Maybe I'm just too optimistic.
WTF?
How many times do you see commercials for movies that say "own it on DVD". Of course the average person doesn't realize it's just a license when the ads lie and say you own it.
I find it really wierd that this story was one of the subitems on the front page but is now a full story! How did that happen?
I feel the same way as you do, this is out of hand.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Um, no. When you buy the game, you are purchasing the media with a copy of a copyrighted work. Namely, you are purchasing the right to receive a copy. You are not entering into a license agreement. It's true that copyright law does grant the recipient the license to do whatever they want with it (short of make another copy except for fair uses), but that's the only "license" involved in the transaction (in the US, of course). Everything else is just a figment of the imagination of the vendor. They might tell you that you bought entered into a license agreement, but in practice, there's really no law backing that up (not that it won't stop them from suing you into oblivion).
The problem with Sony's technology here is that, if implemented, the technology would be tantamount to damaging the media you purchased without any existing legal basis for doing so.
Thank you for saying this. I hear this bull$#!^ so often on the internet, or even in my own computer user group, it makes me want to scream.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
"...Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection."
Bullshit. It is perfectly legal for me to resell the ORIGINAL copy of music, movies, and most software. It is NOT legal to sell COPIES of the originals. Yes, they would like to stamp this out too. And, you are making it easier by pretending we already do not have the right to resell.
I suspect this may relate more to Japan than the US. In the past in Japan I do believe used games sells were not allowed. Im thinking this has just laxed up a little bit recently. So a 2000 patent to enforce this practice doesnt really suprize me.
Konchu
FTA: Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection."
No, no, no, how can the LA Times get something so basic so wrong?
Buyers of legal copies of copyrighted works are buying the physical copy, and have a right to sell that legal copy to someone else. A book, a CD, a DVD, an Excel CD. It is called The Doctrine of First Sale.
Sony would of course prefer that you didn't know this. But now you do.
Sony probably won't implement something like this as it seems that downloaded content is the future. Xbox Live, Nintendo Online, Sony's online component are probably all test beds for the future development of digital distribution like how Steam distributes it. That way each game is locked to an account (registering the console online?). Probably not this generation of consoles, but the next generation... and possibly how all software will be distributed.
If you don't like the way Sony is implementing something they wish to sell you, uhm... don't buy it.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
Fine. But there's a big difference between selling copies of CDs (or games) in your collection, and selling the only original copy. I've heard rumors for a while that RIAA, MPAA, and other groups were planning on going after the used music/movie/game industry. Since when are you required to own a product for life once you buy it? As long as you transfer all copies/licenses to a new party, you should be able to give or sell any media you have purchased to someone else. And there is no reason why record companies, game publishers, or movie studios deserve another cut of that purchase price (I've also heard rumors that record companies are trying to squeeze some percentages out of used music sales). This is getting ridiculous.
Only care if they get caught? Sounds just like the corps to me.. Why should I feel sorry for them? Only instead of downloading a song, they are putting on rootkits on CDs that lead to new spam pathways, dumping toxic chemicals, creating artificial blackouts to screw consumers, etc.. why should I even care if they are getting ripped off?
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
Sony has people who develop cutting-edge tech, and people who sit in offices. (Just like MS's progammers and lawyers.) Sony's lawyers and anti-piracy people are the people who give Sony a bad name with schemes like this, while the R&D people make some of the best tech on the planet.
from the good-rumours-never-die dept.
At least he is being honest about this one.
If people can't borrow games from friends or sell their games when they've finished them, or would have to buy all games new if they need to replace their system, they may as well bow out now. Who will pay for this?
It's a girl!
Incorrect.
You do not click through a EULA, nor sign an agreement when you purchase a game. Thus, you are not bound by any form of "liscence." You own your copy of the game. Copyright law prevents you from doing certain things, but that's the same for any copyrighted work -- not just liscenced ones.
Please, lets not give Sony any victories they haven't earned here. No console games to date have been liscenced to their "owners". Sony would be treding dangerous new ground here if they tried it with the PS3.
(There are certain exceptions -- namely games with online components. These typically have you sign an agreement that also includes a liscence to use the software.)
And let's not forget that while Sony says they have no intention of using this technology, their track record suggests that this is not a trustworthy statement. They didn't invent and patent this technology just to add to their patent portfolio.
Come to think of it, I've written similar routines for code I've used and distributed. Would that constitute "prior art"?
Actually the $500 PS3 is most proper to compare against the $400 360 - because all models of the PS3 ship with an HD. There is no reason for a GAMER to buy the $600 PS3 over the $500 model - you can play 1080p over a component connection, and a gamer does not need a media card reader for loding pictures from the beach trip!
The $600 model is more the "Home PC model", not so much the "Premium Console Model" That's a function already held by the $500 model which is why that is the proper model to use in any comparison, just as you have to talk about the $400 model of the 360 because everyone is going to buy the HD even if they do not buy the premium model.
If the $600 model included any feature which was mandatory for a gamer to own I would feel differently. Sony was smart though and didn't offer a $400 crippled version of the PS3 which would lead developers to wonder how much of the market would own a hard drive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I doubt it's true. That idea would pretty much destroy a big advantage Sony enjoys, backward compatibility.
Despite unrest in the gaming community over this technology, the company has repeatedly stated they have no plans to use it in the PS3.
In other words, the gaming community is upset because Sony says that it isn't planning to use this technology.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I had a PS1 one it first came out, then I sold it, but had some of the games sitting around, so later I picked up the PS1 again. If Sony had implemented this technology, then I would have to go and buy the games all over again. The only way this technology would work is if the technology was cheap enough to be that disposable.
Can I bum a sig?
In my opionion, as far as the PS3 and Blueray is concerned, 1080p is absolutely mandatory. For me, and many others, buying a crippled system is not an option. (and a lot more than just HDMI and 1080p is crippled) As much as the $299 Xbox360 is a joke, the $499 PS3 is exponentially more so a joke. It's not called being a fanboy. It's called being a realist. Try it someday.
The bank doesn't own your car. You do. The bank has a lien against it. The bank does't want to own your car ... they just want to take it from you when you fail to pay the loan.
...
... yet. We had huge "civil rights" issues in the 1960s in the US. I expect that the next big social upheaval will be over "information rights."
The lien exists such that you can own the car, and such that the county/state/fed government may tax you appropriately (which is actually the reason a lien exists.) The gub'ment wants your money, and they can't take it from *you* by trying to tax a bank located in another state/country. But that a completely different (but related) rant
Ultimately, the publishers wish to control distribution. They make a buck if they do, and get squat if you bypass them. They want to make it illegal to transfer ownership of a work (be it a book or a cd or a DVD) without getting a cut. The states will probably support them because financial transactions involve taxation. The problem arises when your audio CD is conveyed to you as "property." You have certain rights regarding property, and those rights include the ability to transfer title to the property to someone else. Publishers would like nothing better than to convince the gub'ment that the audio CD is merely a container, and the copyright on the information within should devalue the owner's property status to that of licensee (because the container and information are inseparable, or some crap like that.) Subsequently, you will become a felon because you sold your non-transferrable audio CD to someone else. Of course, this cuts both ways, and your momma becomes a felon when she buys you a Metalica CD for your birthday (she bought it, but can't legally transfer title to you because she bought it and the license would be non-transferrable. Right?)
The **AA-types want "property" status in order to complete the initial sales transaction, but they want your ownership status to magically change to "licensee" at some point when it's financially convenient. They can't have it both ways
You buy an implied license which is what copyright law gives you. You don't get to do whatever you want to do with it. You get to do what the implied right that are given to you.
You're right... you would still own the license. That whole thing about customers not owning the game could actually come back to bite them in the ass. In fact I'd wonder whether they'd be allowed to even charge a replacement fee? It's not as if the media or license is problematic, it's the thing that tied the license to you - something that couldn't possibly have been your fault when it dies. Arguably they'd also be forced to replace scratched discs, since the game continues to be their property and thus their responsibility.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Dropping HDMI support in the low-end model is a truly boneheaded thing to do to customers, but it doesn't actually leave the system crippled as the XBox 360's $300 model is.
There is no reason why this is a bad move from the standpoint of gaming:
* Neither 360 model even has an HDMI port at all.
* Will WII have an HDMI port? Seriously doubt it.
* You can play games at 1080p via component, there are a number of true 1080p displays coming out that support 1080p over component.
Even for movies it's not that bad as you can at least play them at 1080i, and possibly at 1080p depending on how close Sony is to the AAC guidelines.
Pesonally I am glad as a consumer that I finally have a choice I can make between technology that is cool and includes DRM, vs technology that is just as cool and leaves it of (well, some of the DRM anyway - you still have AACS and game protections). There is no way I would buy the $600 PS even if it were cheaper than the $500 model.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The reasons to buy one console over the other are: 1) "I _LIKE_ Sony." Fair enough, but I don't know THAT many Sony fanboys. 2) Price. Sony's consoles are a good bit more than everybody elses...and if I'm stuck buying $60 games because I cant play any used ones... 3) Unique games. Such as Halo 2. Oh, wait, thats on the xBox. ...what unique games does Sony have again?
Plus there are many anti-DRM people out there who won't buy it just because it uses a DRM.
I think if they ever try to do this, many people will see it and take the cue to go buy a different console (whatever version of xBox Microsoft has come up with by this time) and play their favorite games on that.
Of course they don't expect you to "buy" two copies of the game.
They expect you to "license" them.
Sony's been apparently trying to convince me to stop buying anything with their name on it for at least the past ten years and they made their case years ago. This is just beating the dead horse into the ground. If Sony made the cure for cancer and I was approaching death I'd want to take a moment to read the fine print.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I loved the PS1 & PS2. I had no interest in the 360 or the Wii. I WAS going to buy a PS3. Was.
They've done it. They've turned even me against them. First it's get an extra job to afford the thing. Then it's more expensive for a dvd format that not the standard yet, and could be the next beta.
Then I'm blatantly told I'll buy their machine because of branding, no matter what the cost.
Now they've gone and start messing with this idea. "Oh we won't use it." They say.
I'd rather not find out.
360 AND a Wii here I come.
They'd sell many more games? Baaaaallllloooonnnnneeeeyyy.
People would demand to play the demo at the store... or they'd read the reviews at 19 different sites before spending money. Face it, the junk games don't do well. But, 75% of the games out there are JUNK. If Sony forced out the previously owned and rental markets, kids would only buy the guaranteed "hit" games. The junk would not get bought, it would not have any resale value.
Sony is trying to improve those numbers because they know that a large catalog of available games helps sell their consoles. Parents don't want to buy a console that doesn't have any games. Kids don't want a console with a limited selection of games. So, Sony is trying to get developers to build games. They have developers that are queued up to create games to "fill" the catalog. The "big" games from the big name developers aren't enough. Wiping out the rental market... isn't a good idea. Some of these developers will not sell enough games, and Sony's plan will backfire. The developers will go under, and Sony will be left with a dog of a console. At least I hope it backfires. The worst thing that could happen would be for the rental shops to go under, and kids to start buying these dogs, and just throwing the game away if it sucks.
Yeah, I already paid for the software - the right to use it is implicit in the thing.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I don't buy Sony products.
(Not flaimbait, I'm quite serious.)
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Don't use the existance of the patent to conclude the ps3 will have this tech.
A lot of tech companies encourage employees to think up & file patents. Hell, where I work you're required to submit certain numbers of patents before you can move into some of the higher positions. This could easily have been some idea that poped into someone's head and they decided to use it to fill their patent quota.
Why do they get to use technological measures to circumvent a long established principle of fair use?
They have right of first sale only. Any interference with that should be grounds for civil damages. In this political climate, it won't be of course, but it should be.
Fair use is a limited monopoly. One of the limits is fair use. Fair use is as much a part of copyright as the part the enforce so vigorously.
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
To the writer I would like to say: Fuck you, you are wrong.
First sale doctrine says that you, me, and every other creative person creating works for a reason must accept the following limitation to copyright (for those too lazy to follow the link):
"The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, lawfully made copy of the protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."
Anyone saying other wise needs to adjust their view of reality. I'll bet the moron believes what the RIAA says when they say copyright violation is stealing, right? Ridiculous. I do digital art, web design, and I'm getting in to photography. I count on copyright for a good portion of my wages, yet I wouldn't want the law to suddenly work in this skewed fashion.
Just because DRM does an end run around this right doesn't mean a) I'll accept the media conglomerates terms and b) private businesses now dictate laws. I will circumvent technologies and agencies hell bent on removing my rights at every chance I get.
Not so fast, there...turns out Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for PlayStation 2 does have a nasty EULA.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Manufacturer Defect. They replace it.
I have to buy an entire new set of games?
So if I were to, say, take my old textbook and bludgeon to death my 9th grade English teacher, that would be a perfectly legal use of my copy? Cool.
Copyright law isn't about granting implied licenses. You have a fundamental right to buy a creative work (be it a book or a DVD) then read or watch it. You have the right to resell that particular work. Copyright law has nothing to do with those rights. Absent copyright law nothing would change; you would not need to apply for a license to do so. I no more need a license to read a book or watch a DVD than I do to use the new blender I just purchased.
Copyright law is about granting a monopoly on reproduction to creators of creative works. Absent copyright law you would be free to make and distribute copies, possibly after modifying them. (In the early days of the US copyright law didn't protect foreign authors so US based publishers frequently reprinted foreign works without breaking any laws.) Copyright law removes this freedom. To reproduce and distribute a work you then need a license. That license generally needs to be explicit, absent the license you have no right to reproduce, potentially modifiy, and distribute a work. (This is the basis for the GPL's enforcability.)
By accepting the incorrect "you need a license" argument you're playing into the hands of those who want ever more powerful intellectual property laws. Copyright in the US is more powerful than it has ever been; there is no reason to hand over additional power.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I would only add that the Copyright Act (as amended) *does* (very unfortunately) make *some* distinctions between digital and analog content, and "content companies" are pressing for more. The central point of the parent, however, is quite right: the article's author, in writing the two quoted sentences about a "license" and "that's why it's illegal", HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT HE/SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
--why yes, I*A*AL
Yes. But if you borrowed it from the library, then you go to jail.
EULAs have already been thrown out the window by our consumer laws (too wordy, not understandable by non-lawyers, thus not binding. Case closed). Our consumer's rights lobby is pretty strong here, I'm just hoping they'll sooner or later catch up on the issues of software, licensing and "purchase or non purchase".
That battle shall be fought with the lawyering equivalent of tac nukes, I predict. I'm getting the popcorn ready.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
[Rant] Anyone who votes for anything other than the Democratic ticket in 2008, no matter who is on it, is either a fascist or a fool. The Democrats are only the lesser of two evils, but they are the lesser and the only non-Republican choice with any chance of winning. I hope to God the fools on the left who threw their votes away in 2000 and 2004 voting for pie in the sky candidates with no chance of winning realize by now that they need to vote for the candidates who CAN win. Candidates commanding 3% of the vote cannot win, they can only drain enough votes from the Democrats for the Republicans to win again. Since all modern presidential elections are only a couple of percentage points from 50/50, that is CRITICAL that that 3% is not wasted on Nader (BURN IN HELL, you country ruining mofo) or other such distraction again in 2008. Spread the word: Vote Democrat in 2008, NO MATTER WHAT. Unless you want eight more years of this fascist hell Bush has turned our beloved country into in just six years. [/Rant]
Even though Sony itself says they don't plan on using this technology, I can think of a couple of other reasons they may want to have patented it.
1) Altruistic reasons. Sony is a nice company and they don't want other companies to screw their customers in this fashion. (My opinion: unlikely)
2) Licensing revenue. If other companies want to screw their customers in this fashion at least Sony will get a cut of the action. (My opinion: very likely)
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Anybody remember that little gizmo for the Intellivision called "PlayCable"? Light years ahead of it's time. http://intvfunhouse.com/hardware/playcable/
The only time you are purchasing a license is when you purchase software. When's the last time you opened up a DVD or CD with a EULA in it? Poor reporting LA Times, poor. 30 seconds talking to an IP lawyer and you would've had your facts straight.
So if I were to get a five-finger discount on a ps3 game with that DRM, technically I never agreed to any license.
Stealing all the way!!!
Every geek has some sort of website, programming or computer project. Here's mine: www.youtasteit.com . What's yours?
Well... It wouldn't violate copyright law, unless someone has previously bludgeoned your teacher to death in a fixed medium.
He simple stated a look at the technology, and consumers concerns.
What the hell does your list of probable features have to do?
Quite frankly, I am gtting tired of this knee jerk reaction found in every article about console games.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's traditional.
When you buy a car, you're actually buying a licence to use that car. That's why it violates traffic laws to drive over the speed limit.
Clearly this is a load of rubbish. It violates laws because the laws say you're not allowed to exceed the speed limit. Likewise, copyright laws say you're not allowed to make copies of items you own without permission. You can't do it if you own a copy or if you licence a copy.
(Posted AC because it's a stupid comment)((stupid comment posted because it's a stupid article))
Yeah, I already paid for the software - the right to use it is implicit in the thing.
Not if it says on the side of the box: Subject to License Agreement (or some such phrase).
What about those ads that say "Yours to OWN on DVD". Is that false advertising or do we take them at their word?
"The problem is if the used game is available a week after the new game is out for a $5 discount."
If the used game is widely available a week after the new game is out, that means there's a lot of people who decided, within a week, that they weren't going to play that game again. That doesn't mean the used games are a problem, it means that game didn't have a lot of replayability, or even that it was a lousy game. If people are able to resell a newly released game after a couple of plays for (say) 50% of list, that means their risk in buying a new game that might be a lemon is cut in half.
Take the used market away, and people are going to be less likely to buy new games.
...and the 'First Sale Doctrine' is basically what enables all of these "CD Trading" and "Used CD" shops.
Essentially it says that the copyright owner is entitled to compensation for the first sale ONLY. After that, they are not entitled to compensation every time thereafter the legal copy of that work changes hands.
I am sure you can Google "US Copyright Law First Sale Doctrine" and dig up the actual case briefs on this.
Libertas in infinitum
You have the journalistic integrity of a prepubescent girl. Please stop posting rumor and general bullshit you find about the web.
it's legal to sell your music collection or any part of it, as long as you don't retain a copy of the sold material/content. So a legal option that I could normally exercise with my property (the collection) is disallowed. I heard that Garth Brooks thinks we should pay licensing when buying used recordings, he wasn't getting my money the first time.
I'm guessing that the price on these crippleware CDs or DVDs will be significantly cheaper than the 'anybody can copy this' versions.
Muahahahahaha.
I really think the concept of using this for games is a distraction from its real purpose. Think of information that is supposed to be "for your eyes only." What this does is create a disk that self-distructs. It is ideal for distributing preview versions of movies because it will make piracy difficult.
No, I will not work for your startup
I repeat: What fucking license?
What papers did I recieve? What papers did I sign? Just where in this huge universe can I actually find this license you are talking about?
The answers are ofcourse: No, no, nowhere. So what license are you guys even talking about?
I buy it. The game is mine. Sure, the copyright ain't, but that's an entirely different matter. The game is mine, I own it. Stop perpetuating this goddamn bullshit. Stop being the entertainment industries bitches who are mindlessly brainwashing people who still know better.
I don't know how stuff works in the US, but here in Norway if I buy anything, it is mine. Anyone trying to pull any tricks on that, can be taken to court.
As it should be.
Repeat after me: There is no license.
This might be mod'ed down to GNAA levels. I don't care. I have plenty of karma.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
This is the company that hacked their subscriber's computers via Station. They also put a rootkit on millions of audio CDs they pressed. The threat of losing customers hasn't stopped Sony from pissing on them in the past.
The article is wrong, you can sell your music and movie cd/dvds.
Just check out video ezy or game traders etc... They sell pre watched movies and pre owned games. It is not illegal to sell these things as you own the physical medium.
>> register the disc to that particular game console, then wipe out verification data so the disc would be rendered unreadable in other PlayStations.
So what happens if the console breaks or its CD drive wears out and you have to buy a new one? all of a sudden you can't play your own collection of games anymore, even though you've bought a licence to use the software.
I believe the above poster, to whom you responded, was discussing something completely distinct from what you thought: s/he was pointing out the ambiguity in the phrase "copies of their music collection".
I.e., "copies" can refer to either duplicates (the selling of which, while retaining the original, would violate copyright laws) and original copies, which are covered by the doctrine of first sale.
Your point stands, but so does the above poster's.
Ok. I'm being melodramatic...but look at the PSP. Notice any kind of lock-down going on? Remember all the hype right before it launched about how Sony would release homebrew tools to be used to allow people to develop homebrew games? And where are we now - continuous firmware "upgrades" that introduce little functionality, and effectively halt any kind of easy-to-use homebrew. No official tools. Barely any official downloadable executables. Not to mention the lackluster games and load times...ever try to play that Darkstalkers game?
Even if it isn't the full-fledged "You can't play anything other than games you purchased" lock-down that was patented, I can imagine Sony has something up their sleeves to completely screw up the PS3 gaming experience. I've completely lost confidence in Sony to produce anything more than over-hyped, absolutely beautiful hardware that ends up being nothing more than an over-glorified (and over-priced) media center.
So you believe that it's possible to agree to a contract you can't see?
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
"If you download music in some lawful fashion -- from iTunes, for example -- then you're likely doing so pursuant to a license agreement that
would've been quite prominent. This is necessary since downloading is reproduction, and would otherwise infringe."
Would a license agreement binding on the end-user actually be legally necessary, rather than simply for the distributor(s)?
I.e., I can buy a book, signing no licensing agreement, yet it remains illegal for me to copy and distribute copies of that book. No additional licensing agreement is necessary for copyright law to apply to the intellectual work.
Similarly, no licensing agreement would be necessary, e.g., on iTunes, for redistribution by the end-user (of copies) to remain illegal.
So you believe that it's possible to agree to a contract you can't see?
Having read court cases where such contracts were upheld.....yes.
I'm so far down the list that this won't matter much, but when I buy a Music CD or Movie etc... I actually buy two things.
1. I buy the license (Console games and CDs being a different thing as I see no EULA anywhere or where I agreed to shit) - But lets say that its there and I am only buying a license. In Canada, much like the US, I have a right to resell that item to others.
2. I buy the physical CD or DVD that the data is printed on. Since I cannot separate the two these are mutually exclusive in the sale, or resale of this item.
I have full rights to do anything I want with the physical CD or DVD. This also means that I have the right to restrict Sony or any other from altering that item (it is MY physical property). If they alter that item from being usable (They are destroying MY property) then I can see a class action suit happening here.
- my $.02? - you can't have it...it's all I have!!
The article itself is right about the potential, but consider the many, many replies here that are basically thinking the PS3 is going to include this for sure - despite repeated assertions from Sony they are NOT using this patent in the PS2 or PS3!
Even the writeup was actually not too bad as it mentioned that. But why bring up the whole topic at all when Sony has said repeatedly it is irrelevant? In the end, again as the comments show, they main result is to make many people think this is what Sony is going to do.
I'm not a Sony fanboy, I enjoy other gaming systems as well and think the 360 is actually pretty good. What I do not like is article after article spreading mindless fear about what brand of Evil Sony is up to today. I'd feel the same way if a similar unbalanced view of the Wii or even the 360 was presented - however there is no need to write such a response because you will not see word one against the sainted 360 here on Slashdot.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It seems to me that Sony is forgetting what gamers want and is trying to push what they think gamers want. I strongly feel that Sony will lose the next gen battle because of all these mistakes they are making before the system comes out. These mistakes break even the simplest rules of game development.
As a student in game design I can tell you some of these mistakes are costly. For example, denying a gamer the right to test before buying is a major mistake. From what I know as both a gamer and as a future game designer, I can tell you that is the fundamental right and selling strategy. Most game players do rent before buying and if they are denied that right, then the system will be marked for death. Microsoft and Nintendo have been big on this idea, so Sony should be smart enough to understand this too. Also with the system costing so much, to be unable to rent games on this system will be a fatal mistake.
Sony needs to wake up and realize they have some problems on their hands before it costs them the race. Past success means nothing if this machine comes out as is. The way it stands, Nintendo is getting the golden goose to lay its golden eggs on its lap thanks to Microsoft's acknowledgements and Sony's bumbling nature.
As the article says,
I have reason to believe that 90% of people understand that. It holds true when people "buy" software -- they are buying a license to use it. An EULA usually contains something about transferring your license (i.e. wipe out the copy you have and then you can give/sell it to someone else).It is only the entertainment industry that is totally oblivious to the idea of a person's right to transfer their license to someone else. In any case, Sony will obviously alienate the frugal "try-before-you-buy" types. May I add that you cannot underestimate the number of said type of people.
despite repeated assertions from Sony they are NOT using this patent in the PS2 or PS3
Dude. This is Sony. They put a rootkit on people's computers, people who just wanted to listen to their legally purchased music. They then lied about it, eventually fessed up, and still got away scott-free.
Sony could tell me the sky is blue, and after that fiasco, I'd still not believe them. Only a complete moron would ever trust a company that (and I'll repeat here in case this isn't obvious just how stupid this is) PUT A ROOTKIT ON MUSIC CDS. What Sony says from here on in is irrelevant.
you will not see word one against the sainted 360 here on Slashdot.
You are shitting me, right? There were at least 5 stories in the 360's first friggin WEEK of release alone talking about all of the overheating problems with it. There were dozens of stories before it was released about how expensive it was going to be, how stores were only getting 2 of it, and dozens of stories afterwards about how Microsoft deliberately shorted supply in order to drive up demand.
You're either one seriously good troll, have never read a games-related story on Slashdot in the past year, or just blind. If anything, the 360 has seen 10x the criticism of the PS3 here.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
But also it means that if/when the copyright expires, you'll still have to go buy it one last time, or maybe more. or at least be seriously inconvenienced finding a non-pay source.
Of course, there's every evidence that some things will just keep getting extended copyrights, but maybe not everywhere. And I hope all this digital library stuff is properly instrumented to notice that a digital copyright has expired and to just grant the license automatically. There are all kinds of laws requiring software to do the right thing to protect copyrights, the least we can demand are laws that require software to do the right thing to protect owners/users when copyrights expire.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
What slashdot needs is a +1, Yes. or a +1, Right. Mod for posts like yours above.
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement.
Yes, it is. EULA's are a joke because they try to enforce restrictions on you after the sale. And, usually you can't read the EULA until you've opened the box, at which point the store will refuse to accept a return. Note Microsoft's refusal to live up to their own stipulations in the Window's EULA for Windows Refund Day.
EULA's are worthless garbage, and shame on anyone who claims otherwise.
Ever 'bought' a song off iTunes Music store?
You cant resell them.
You cant give them away.
In short, you bought license to listen to a song, and that's it.
Yes, you can burn copies of it for your own personal use,
but you can not (legally) sell or give them away.
You can do that with a CD, for now, but at some point CDs will be keyed to the
players and the same rules will apply, or a new media format will be introduced
and CDs will no longer be produced. Bought any new 8-track tapes lately?
How many new albums are released any more on Cassette or LP format?
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
If you want a statement from a Sony exec which suggests that indeed they may be considering blocking used-game sales, check out this from last week's story "Sony Talks PS3 E-Distribution Initiative"...
"As part of Sony's plans for the launch of its next-gen PlayStation 3 console later this year, the company has started planning the PS3 E-Distribution Initiative...Gamasutra got a chance to talk to the project's John Hight... (who said) "On the business side, it also lowers our cost of sales and eliminates inventory risk. It should help curtail used game sales and piracy."
The way he puts it in this interview - "curtail used game sales and piracy" - implies that used game sales and piracy are kind of the same thing without actually saying so. Perhaps preparing the ground for the big change...
Having read court cases where such contracts were upheld.....yes.
And the judges in those cases were frikkin idiots. Maybe you should read some of the ones where they've been held unenforcable.
Dude. This is Sony. They put a rootkit on people's computers, people who just wanted to listen to their legally purchased music. They then lied about it, eventually fessed up, and still got away scott-free.
If your brother robbed a bank, would it be OK if I put you in jail?
You see, large companies (the size of Sony large) have large divisions that are pretty much companies unto themselves. One such company is Sony/BMG Music. In fact that very name gives you even MORE of a clue why it's not exactly the same Sony you are thinking of, because it's simply BMG that Sony purchased. In many such cases purchased companies are given a lot of leeway... you may remember BMG from those annoying 10 CD's for a penny promos that locked you into a horrible purchasing contract for drek.
No, I would not purchase water from Sony/BMG in the middle of the Great Sahara.
Now Sony GAMES, that is a different matter. They are the only people at Sony besides display makers who seem to know what the hell they are doing. They had about as much to do with that root kit as Mr T. So why are you breaking THIER balls over something that Sony/BMG did? That makes as much sense as my previous example of you being arrested for your brother's crimes.
You are shitting me, right? There were at least 5 stories in the 360's first friggin WEEK of release alone talking about all of the overheating problems with it.
Sorry, I meant after Zonk got one. Your examples fail to impress me; wat has there been against the 360 for months? The PS3 is lambasted for only having one model with an HDMI port - stories abou tthe 360 not having any? Can't be found. And a story noting the PS3 has some problem or another is front page news while the followup noting the whole thing was a fraud was pushed to the games section only.
You're either one seriously good troll, have never read a games-related story on Slashdot in the past year, or just blind. If anything, the 360 has seen 10x the criticism of the PS3 here.
You've managed a trifecta of wrongness there, quite impressive - not one correct. Count them yourself and see, there are sometimes upwards of three anti-PS3 stories a day. I have read Slashdot almost daily since the 360 release. Count how many POSITIVE PS3 articles there have been.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, the patent itself is old news, but the press is talking about it again, presumably because of the upcoming launch of the PS3. The patent was on the front page of my paper yesterday morning.
Just because the press is talking about something, does not mean that a technically astute online forum such as Slashdot should promote stories about it to the front page when there is no new information to be had.
If there were new facts at hand other than "Sony keeps refuting it" that would be a different story - literally. Not a story almost tailor made into pumping up the weak minded into believing that Sony would do this and kill off the rental market while at the same time alientating the only remaining national videogame sales chain that is also very fond of the profits from used games... the story doesn't make sense from the standpoint that Sony denies it publicily, and from the other standpoint of logic and profit motives. There is not a single reason to think Sony would in fact do this, nor a shred of evidence they would do so.
The result of the story causing FUD is all around you - simply read the comments on Slashdot for this story. I thought people would notice the article summary said Sony had denied they were going to do anything like this but many people around Slashdot are ready to believe the worst about Sony - or at the ready to propogate the worst possible spin on something such as this story.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sorry, but the nature of ownership is NOT changing. Ownership implies that you own the object in question and are allowed to do with it as you please. Ownership != a rent or a lease. People need to stop using the word ownership and use rent instead. Or perhaps borrow. It'd get the point across a lot quicker and people would realize what shit this is a lot sooner.
That sentence is un-possible... Is there unrest over Sony Not using it in the PS3?
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Well, I work in the technical side of the video business, I work with customers that are just tremendous. The first few names that came to your mind are actually my customers. We do a lot of promotion work for them as well as encoding etc...
Well here's the deal, when we get together for these company gatherings, you know the beer and finger food nights they have, I get to meet a lot of people involved in the business. I've come to the conclusion that outside of this business, many of them are simply unemployable. It's basically a bunch of film groupies that decided to work in the business that they were so fascinated by. Their education is extremely limited and with the rare exception, when you meet someone with their head screwed on properly, it's rare that an intelligent conversation could be had. These people talk openly about having either hired a girl because they have a cute ass or the girls that talk about how they work on their looks in order to get promotions. I've sat next to a girl that was actually talking to a coworker seriously about who she should sleep with at the party in order to get her next job with a hire salary.
So the point of this is that these spokespeople rarely understand what it is they themselves are talking about. They are surviving on buzzwords and neat terms they've heard alone to survive.
So here's how a release comes out like this irreponsible remark made in this release. Someone during a lunch or meeting had summerized their perspective on the rules into a single short thought for this person, this person then uses it publicly and makes a fool of themselves.
In most countries, these licenses are in fact not actually legal. It's great since the license is often written first and then lobbied for in government. So far, I've managed to find out that in many countries, simply the concept of presenting in the license that the purchase was a non-transferrable license for use of the media delivered nullifies the rest of the license therefore, if the copyright of the material is declared as part of the license, then the copyright itself is forfeit. This does not however make providing copies of the material to people in other countries legal. Only if the laws themselves are the same in the other countries.
As for some earlier comments which I've read, well it's simple, the license for the material is located inside the book which noone actually reads. Typically, the license is pretty solid but does make some claims which are there more for scare tactics than anything else since they aren't enforcable.
As for ownership of the material, unless I'm in a place which clearly declares on media that the media itself remains property of the copyright holders and that I'm in fact simply purchasing a license to listen to/view the media enclosed, then I am purchasing the media.
Now for the fun one, class action. If the music/movie industry is now telling us we are in fact purchasing not the media, but the license to use the media which remains property of the copyright holder as claimed in the statement released above, then it is a case of misrepresentation. After all, the consumer is being tricked into believing they are buying the disc when in fact they would have to open the package and read the license agreement within the sealed unit to understand this. I don't know if the comment made by the industry executive above is good enough grounds to begin litigation, but I think there must be some hungry lawyer out there that should take a stab at it.
Then their changing it from a purchase to a license has no validity. I buy a box, if that box has a note in it stating after I have paid for it that I did not buy it, the note means nothing.
Of course, this assumes rule by law not by social position, and I leave it to the reader to decide whether our courts rule by law or by social position.....
I modify the license to change terms I don't agree with, initial it, then agree to it. Never yet a license that I couldn't agree to after doing that!
If it is a click-license in the software, patch it to change the terms first. Since you haven't yet agreed to the terms that say you can't modify or reverse engineer it, there's no reason you can't do that. Since most software click-licenses show the terms in a standard scrolling text box, you might even be able to make a standard extension to allow you to modify the terms on the screen before you click "I Accept".
Or just patch it so that the buttons for "I Accept" and "I Don't Want To Run The Software That I Paid Good Money For" are reversed. After all, you don't need a license to run it, unless you want to do things that the license allows that you don't already have the right to do.
Under various Taxation Laws, I welcome their attempt to licence something. A sale of a boxed product is taxed normally, and by the time deductions come out, the amount of tax paid is negligible. With purchases, tax deductability, and hire/lease agreements for purchasers may also decrease, and come out of capital, not on expenses.
Now with licencing, royalties, withholding taxes, state hire taxes, and extra state taxes come into play. Take the word 'buy'out of advertising and sales will plumment, or they get sued for false misreprensation.
Liability for faulty product and 'unsuitability' also attach to real licence agreements. Stockists will also take a hit on depreciation and writeoffs.
Going to licence, will awaken the IRS, and finally allow them to collect oodles of tax, as the expense invisibility of software is crystalised. It may be easy to buy flunky congress-critters to shrill and pander special interest bills, but the IRS may be recalcitrant, and tax licence royalties to the fullest extent, according to law.
"they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen"
You do not need a license to use, watch or listen.
You need a copyright license to copy, distribute it or to perform i publicly.
The publisher is the one who copies and distributes it and needs a license.
The purchaser does not. (US law)
Swedish law precedent is that you make a copy of a program or music within the computer when you use it and you need a license for that copy. Which is really a pervertion of swedish copyright law.
- until proven otherwise.
I wonder - will the entertainment industry ever learn that what they get out of this kind of things is simply that people in general find it more and more acceptable to use cracked SW and pirated films and CDs? When you assume that your customers are criminals and treat them accordingly, they will be alienated, what a surprise!
Of course, I know that these radically protected disks are not common now, but if the issuing company likes 'em, you will see more and more of them. TFA referred to games, but the same idea holds, your collection of games is property that you can currently transfer to someone else, but if this becomes common, you will have to sell them your console as well for them to make use of the games.
I admit to digressing to music disks, but I'm not a gamer, and the technology seems to be going in the same direction.
"Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection."
That's not true. If it was a license pleople would receive a new copy if it broke or be able to download it as much as they wanted for the rest of their lives. When you buy a CD you do not sign for these absurd, far fetched and schizo limitations.
The whole media industry is an impossibility that's being tolerated because nobody knows how to regulate it. And lately the industry is trying to exploit these lack of regulations by running amok claiming everything that hasn't been defined yet as THEIR right instead of the consumer's. Worst thing is: They're succeeding and everyone's letting it happen!
I am familiar with the Netscape download case (and companies changed their practices as a result). Could you provide me some citations to other cases? I'd be glad to read them.
Hey, if I only puchase a usage licence but not the movie, why can't I get a replacement DVD for my scratched media but need to pay the full license again to buy a new one?
Try it in any shop.
Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
What I don't get is why people (Slashdot readers no less) continue to buy Sony products. They have already shown themselves to have as much repeatability as a pimp, through the rootkit scam. Why buy Sony?
Every import game I have talks about how it is not legal to sell used games there.
Copyright law is a strange and murky area as it applies to computer programs.
Patching the software has a couple of problems. First, patching the software creates a derivative work. That may be fine if you just use it yourself and don't make copies. But loading a computer program into memory makes a copy. Copying the program from the CD to your harddrive also makes a copy. A court (a long, long time ago - in computer years) ruled that this kind of copying is inherent in the purchase of the software. However, it is unclear whether that inherent right applies to derivative works of the software. This is one of those cases where you're probably breaking the law but it's not like their going to come after you for it.
Second, if the box (or website) says that the software is subject to a license agreement and/or terms of use, you're not going to be able to get around that. If you modify the terms of use and click "I agree," a court would probably find that you agreed to the original terms of use simply by keeping and using the software. This kind of license agreement or terms of use can be held unenforceable in certain circumstances. For instance, in one famous case the terms of use were not visibile on the part of the web page where the user had to click "I agree." A license agreement may also not be upheld if there is no clear way for the user to get their money back if they do not agree. Otherwise, you're going to be held to the terms.
So while your actions may help you sleep better at night, they aren't grounded in any kind of legal reality.
XBOX 360 anyone? Sure, it's a Microsoft console, but at least we still have the freedom to try and resale games if we see fit. Oh, and another thing: the 360 is here. Now. Sony has been making promises it knows it can't keep right up until the end. Sure, Microsoft put a spin on the 360, thought not so many flat out lies as Sony does. Sony doesn't try hard because they think they are the big bad boys in town. Well, let me tell you, a few years ago, no one in the tiny town I live in would even THINK of getting an XBOX over a Playstation. About a year ago, that started changing. Some people traded in their PS2's for XBOX's and I've lost count of how many gamers now have the 360 and no plans for a PS3. Sony's uncaring, DRM-loving attitude is going to come back to bite them. And before anyone starts pissing about the 360's that had some hardware trouble, wait and see. The PS3 has a plethora of new, untested, and broken until recently technology inside of it. It'll be interesting to see what kind of problems the first generation Blu-Ray drives have and how many cell processors go into meltdown.
When you purchase a copyrighted work you own the media that it came on, meaning you can do anything you want with it as long as it is not a derivative work. Just like that Cleanflix crap from earlier this week, they are breaking copyright law by producing derivative works without the concent of the copyright holder. When you buy a copy of a CD, DVD, book, magazine, anything, you own that media and can sell it, destroy it, burn it, use it to wipe your ass. You just can't cut out the letters to make a ransom note - that is copyright infringment.
Nihilism means nothing to the dancing peasants
For the most part, EULAs suck. They're a horrible blight on IP law, but I guess I'm getting off topic.
Literally, you appear to have lost the faculties for critical thought. I am not saying they will not do it because they are not evil - I am saying financially they have many incentives NOT to do so, and none to do so. You don't have to think they will not do it because it is evil, just because a corperation likes money. Isn't that what you and your ilk fundamnetally believe, that a corp will do anything for money? I have shown how only using that motive the result is Sony would not do this stupid game tying thing.
Give me a profit motive for them to do so if you are so certain they will, rather than mindless rants about how "$ony is teh Evil".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen."
So why is it that when I buy a "license to watch" The Matrix, for instance, I have to re-purchase such a license when I want to watch it on the BluRay/HD-DVD format? If we truely are buying an intellectual property license, we should be completely liberated from the limitations of the physical medium. If we buy such a license and our DVD is damaged, a replacement should be provided to us free of cost (or at cost of materials, at least). Same thing when a new (and better) format comes out. The intellectual property doesn't change, only the medium on which it is stored. So why do we have to buy it all over again?
Are we buying the disc or are we buying license to the intellectual property? The entertainment industry can't have it both ways, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes there is. Only the $600 version of the PS3 has WiFi.
You can buy a WiFi ethernet adaptor for less than $100. Why would you pay more again?
The other thing you forget is that MANY users of the system will never even want to hook into a network. I bought the PS2 network adaptor years ago but never installed it because there was no point - I enjoy single player games much more than the mindless fragfests that are most online games. I especially dislike the juvinile comments online, that turns a lot of people off and limits my time even on PC online games to a small amount.
So the $500 model is cheaper even for those that want to network - whatever percentage of console users that might actually be. Even the XBox does not have anywhere near 100% of users going online.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, the courts were ruling that you did NOT have a right to make the temporary copies in RAM needed to run a program, which is why copyright law was changed to grant the owner of an authorized copy the right to copy and modify the software to the extent necessary to make it run. This would include copying it from CD to hard drive to RAM, for instance.
If the program won't run unless I click I Agree, and I Do Not Agree with the terms, then patching the program so it works without clicking I Agree might be a "necessary step" to get it to run!
If I reject the license, even if "it said so on the box", I am still the owner of that copy, and can use the content in ways that copyright law allows me.
A terms-of-use agreement on a server is a different matter. You clearly have no right to download content or connect to a server without permission, so if it says that in order to continue you have to agree to certain terms, then those terms ARE enforceable. It is a completely different situation from having an authorized copy of some software in your possession that you own.
Somehow I don't think that "patching" a program to change the installer as an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program" is going to pass the red-face test in front of a judge. It sounds like you're taking a moral stand and throwing together as much of a legal argument as you can so you feel good about yourself. Why not just take a true moral stand and take part in some real civil disobedience instead of cobbling together some weak justification?
"The only things you CAN'T do by law with a purchased copy of a copyrighted work are those actions expressly forbidden by the copyright law."
:)
There are a few people I would like to beat some sense into using a nice heavy hardback book. I could even get rich by charging admission for the public beating some of these nitwits, but this would make the act a non private use of copyright protected material. Besdies it is still illegal for other reasons anyway, what a shame.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Waiving the right of first sale is easy: just make sure that Blockbuster is never the "owner of a lawfully made copy" under 17 USC 109 and foreign counterparts. In this case, Sony rents the discs to Blockbuster stores, which in turn rent them to end users. Two-level rental is common in real estate, where it is called "subletting".
Yeah we are discussing semantincs. I call copyright law an implied license because that is what you get when you don't attach a license. If copyright law was not there. Then you would be free to do WHATEVER you wanted with the product you buy. You could copy and sell it, etc. Due to copyright law some restrictions apply and that is why I call that an implied license. You get to do a LOT of things still none of which include making copies and selling them to friends.
What happens is that the industry is not happy and they want to force a more restrictive license (in some cases, the GNU license for example, does away with many of the restrictions) on their users.
So I think we are agreeing. Given the restrictions imposed by copyright law, there is no need for an extra license. That is unless you want to do things like force people to pay A LOT MORE by forcing them to pay every time they play or allow them to use it only in one physical location, etc, etc. Things that were not feasible before become feasible now through technical means. Then you just make it a criminal offense to circumvent the technical means and count the money. That is until the invicible hand of offer and demand kills you and/or your product.
"Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen."
Oh yeah? Then why is it that when I lose my copy of a CD, or it becomes damaged, the industry won't supply me with a new copy, free of charge? How about when CDs die and are replaced with new media? Are they doing to continue my perpetual license and supply me with new copies of my 200+ CDs? No? Then screw 'em.
HDMI is just DVI+audio in a smaller form factor. Nothing stops Wii from sending 480p video over a DVI connector.
However, they are correlated. Wikipedia:HDMI states that nearly all HDMI displays implement HDCP, while considerably fewer DVI displays do.
Yeah, and get your movie downsampled to only 25 percent more pixels than standard-definition PAL video. Blu-ray Disc video with ICT over component cables is 960x540; PAL DVD video is 720x576.
The real problem here is that the old market used to be a costly distribution network, requiring lots of physical reproduction of master copies, and trucking these copies around. It used to be so expensive that there was a natural barrier of entry getting into the distribution business. The Internet has completely overwhelmed the old distribution chain for media. Remember how the RIAA whined about dual-cassette decks before the advent of the CD? "Home taping is killing record industry profits?" Later, CDRs gave them the same issue, but the lawyers just directly cited the same arguments against the RIAA under the dual-cassette issue caselaw.
The distributors used to be the tollbooth operators from which artists and the other 95% of the music business got all of their money. Now nobody's driving because we all have our own personal helecopters or something. Which is lamer? The argument that helecopter pilots should all drive their helicopters through the old toll booth, or the attractions at the destinations (artists) should find another way to get money independant of the tollbooth operators?
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...