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...
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.)
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?
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.
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
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.
$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.
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.
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
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
Incorrect on both counts. PSO v1 tied the game's serial number to the DC for online play only. You could rent and resell PSO as many times as you wanted as long as you didn't want to play online. However, if you did purchase the game used with the intent of playing online, you could call Sega and have your disc serial reset. They discontinued the service at some point before PSO v2 came out.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
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.)
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?
Pricing is perceived value and the rate people are willing to pay for an object, not the relative value to an item which no longer exists.
Have you stopped using gasoline because the price has tripled? Will you get a reduction in cost because the ethanol laced gasoline provides fewer miles-per-gallon due to lower energy density? Of course not. Supply and demand drive prices, not value.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
My point exactly... consumers don't care about copyright owners. You'll notice that the rootkits came out after Napster, after P2P, after computing technology made it extremely easy to make exact digital copies in seconds. I'm not giving the big media giants a pass... they suck... but that doesn't justify violating their copyrights from a legal standpoint. Your just making justifications... admit that you violate copyrights, admit that you don't care that you violate the law, and move on... but don't be a puss and try to justify your actions w/ lame arguments.
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?
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'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well... It wouldn't violate copyright law, unless someone has previously bludgeoned your teacher to death in a fixed medium.
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.
b) You might want to fix the link in your sig.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
>> 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.
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
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.
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...
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.....