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.

Comments

Re:Blockbusted

[Rob T Firefly]

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...

That's it on the nose. How many crappy games did you decide not to buy your own copy of, after renting it for a couple of dollars and being disappointed? If game rental was squashed, if even borrowing a game from a friend was squashed, they'd sell many more copies thanks to people not being able to try things out on the cheap beforehand to find out how much it sucks.

LA Times apparently unfamiliar with copyright law

[ChaosDiscord]

Apparently Dawn C. Chmielewski of the L.A. Times had some sort of seizure causing her to type the following insanity:

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. 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.

That's very incorrect

[cpt kangarooski]

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.

Re:Copyright Laws

[stubear]

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.

Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules

[DavidTC]

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'.