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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
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.
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.)
The article os full of shit, there is no license when you purchase movies, music, etc. Copyright laws are like any other law, and no other laws act as a license between the individual and the state. Intellectual property has not changed with the advent of the digital world. It's easier to distribute but this doesn't mean the copyright holder should lose their right of distribution. in fact, this the most important right that needs to stay the same. While I agree that things like this Sony contraption should be considered illegal to manufacture, I do not weep for those who are busted for illegally distributing intellectual property.
I really wish people would actually ready USC 17 instead of relying on what they heard about copyright law from a blog on the internet. The conversation to address and improve upon copyright limitations in the digital world would be so much easier.
You are wrong. If you live in the U.S., or are under any sort of international copyright law, you do not have the right to copy content unless the owner of that content gives it to you. I know it's fun to delude yourself into thinking you can, but you can't.
The Sony - Blockluster contact can include a section where Blockluster waives the Right of First Sale. Blockluster doesn't have to sign it, Sony doesn't have to produce rentable copies of their games.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
"...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
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!
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 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
20 years, actually. Sony could license the patent, but I doubt Nintendo and MS would like the idea of paying license money to their competitor for every console sold.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Early nintendo power wasn't about reviews.
It was about tips and guides for games.
Pick up Nintendo Power issue 1, if you can find it. Maps of Super Mario Bros. 2, maps of Metroid, guides for slews of other games.
Just imagine how it could turn back against them, if someone who lost all their titles because of a defective PS3 actually sued them and winned. Now imagine the flood of other users suing them, the class action... That would be wonderful...
Your ad could be here!
You have no concept of ownership. Cash is exchanged for a physical product, and it legally becomes mine. I can do whatever the heck I want with it, as long as I do not violate copyright. A violation of copyright occurs if I make copies of the digital contents of the physical product which I legally own and try to resell or redistribute them. The content is not a physical product, therefore illegal copying is not legally defined as theft, only copyright infringement.
Again, there is no lease, and no amount of revisionism will change that.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
You aren't even bound by a license when you buy software. You might be bound by it when you click okay, but who knows.
And, yeah, the meme that copyrighted works are 'licenced' has now spread to other mediums where there aren't any fucking licenses at all. I don't mean 'The licenses aren't legal' or 'The licenses can't change the terms after the sale', but there are simply no licenses, at all, in any way. None.
And, no, there's no such thing as an 'implied license'. No one's ever been sued for a contract violation for doing anything with a music CD. There is merely copyright, which prohibits certain things under the law.
The media should be exposing this, but instead we have the fucking LA Times repeating nonsense. And bringing it up in an article about reselling and renting games and thus implying that practice is a 'license violation' is insane, considering that every store that sells or rents games or music or videos would be in violation if that were so.
I think implying that a huge percentage of our retail establishments (Hell, it would be easier to count the ones that don't sell anything covered by copyright.) are operating in violation of the law by reselling copyrighted material should be more than enough to require a correction and firing of this 'Dawn C. Chmielewski'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Wrong on both points: They can license it or freely allow it's implementation, and the term is 17 years.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In the US there is the so-called "First-sale doctrine". It means that the owner of a legitimate copy may do whatever he/she wants with it as long as the law is not broken (like e.g. in the case where this original copy is used to make illegitimate copies). For example, you can sell it as a used copy in a flee market or in a used goods store because in that case the transaction will be legal (taxes will be payed to the state), and so on.
However, companies have armies of lawyers that can spend years in courts trying to prove that black is white. We on the other side are not able to do this. In case this rediculus patent is applied people will be pissed - no doubt - but they won't be able to make a stand. And given that there will always be people that consume without thinking, it will be profitable for companies to maintain such a lawyer army
Sadly, the only way out of this is to boycott the companies that apply such techiniques. Everyone is responsible for his own conscience, right?