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.)
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well... It wouldn't violate copyright law, unless someone has previously bludgeoned your teacher to death in a fixed medium.
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.
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.....