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

Blockbusted

[TheFlamingoKing]

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...

Re:Blockbusted

[Rob T Firefly]

1. Single console copies for the home market.
2. Multiple console copies for the rental market.

Wait until a formerly new title's hype has blown over and Lackluster Video wants to get rid of their 20 extra copies. Hello again, used market. Even better, hello used market for games with better functionality than new retail copies. Same goes for when someone eventually finds a way to pirate rented games. Hello, 0-day no-strings-attached ISO files that beat legit shelf copies in every way but the DVD sleeve.

Re:Blockbusted

[chrismcdirty]

It also means you'd have to re-buy your game collection every time your console died.

Re:Blockbusted

[Korin43]

Your "Nintendo Wii FTW" comment made me realize that this is actually a good thing. Not because other consoles won't do this, but because other consoles CAN'T do this. Sony patented it, so only Sony can do this (for 10 years-ish, right?).

Re:Blockbusted

[sorak]

Alternatively, they might sell none at all, as all the customers go and buy hardware that doesn't implement such restrictions, and has a plentiful supply of less expensive titles. I can see why Publishers might THINK they want this, but unless it is implemented universally (and it can't be really, modded consoles would render this moot for everything except online games, and if you're going to mod your console, you might as well pirate the games) but in reality other companies would offer a more custumer friendly approach and reap the benefits in the market.

Of course, I hate Sony anyway, so I'm all in favor of them implementing this kind of scheme. Nintendo Wii FTW.

No disrespect intended, but Lassaiz-faire doesn't work. At least it doesn't work in the modern world. I'm sure that, at one time, people may have gone to a dishonest carpenter, felt cheated, told their friends, and eventually killed the carpenter's business based on poor word-of-mouth.

In today's entertainment market, however, that is not an option. If Rockstar game refuses to make "Grand-Theft-Auto: Branson, Missouri" on any system other than PS3, then people will buy a PS3, and they will gladly buy two copies so they can play it on the new PS3 they buy when their first PS3 spontaneously explodes, six months after being purchased (Tell me you don't know somebody who has had a defective PS2). Also, there is a good chance that Sony will work out some deal with Rockstar games, to assure that the game doesn't get released on any other system.

As for modding, most people won't do it because 1). The process often requires you to break open the system and solder in a chip, running the risk of turning a $350+ game system into a paperweight, and 2). The DMCA makes it illegal for stores or people with any kind of real skill to solder a chip in. The end result is that, if you want to pay $60 for a chip, and if you know someone you trust with your system, then you can get it modded, but most people aren't that "into" gaming.

The only thing that can kill a system or hardware is a lack of high quality games, and DMCA cripplling is like spanish fly to the people who make those games.

there's a reason so few realize the rules

[yagu]

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.)

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:Sony would be out of their minds to enable this

[squiggleslash]

Quite. My home has TVs in all four bedrooms and the living room, and quite honestly, the hassle of unplugging the system and all of its cables to move it around is more than a little bit of a PITA (not to mention the issues when different members of the family want to play different games at the same time.)

That's why when the PS3 comes out, my family intends to buy six (one for outdoors by the pool too). Now, I know that my son and daughter have very different opinions about what makes a great game, as do my wife and I, but there are games that appeal to all of us, and for those games to only work on one of the consoles is going to royally suck. Are we supposed to play it exclusively on the living room console or the pool console? What about late at night? What if some of us want to play the game, and the rest of us want to relax in the living room in peace and quiet?

In the end, the only solution is going to be to buy multiple copies, and I don't know about you, but I think that's an outrage as it is. It's bad enough that we have to buy seperate copies for use on the PS2-based system we have wired up in the back of both my wife and I's Hummers, for when we're taking the kids out on longer trips. We were thinking of including the Hummers's PS2s as another pair of consoles we were going to upgrade to PS3s when the PS3 comes out, but on hearing this, it sounds like it would be a complete waste of money.

With gas prices being what they are, the notion we should pay for six (or eight, if we're to include the Hummer PS3s) copies of each game on top of everything else is quite simply asking too much. Where are we supposed to find the money?

What fucking license?

[trezor]

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.