Yes and no. Yes, it's available in Canada. Yes, it's free on certain satellite providers (read: Unencrypted).
No, apart from that, generally, any station originating from outside Canada is illegal in Canada, unless it's whitewashed for 35% Canadian content, which I highly doubt Muzak is.
Since it's illegal to pay for US TV & Radio services in Canada, but legal to listen/watch them if they're unencrypted......DishNetwork CD audio channels to the rescue!
What kind of design are you using where you are re-writing EPROMs over 100,000 times?
The *only* sector of memory that I could see failing is the page counter. A good desgin would allow the printer to continue to function despite a broken EPROM sector containing the page counter. A cheap and nasty design would simply store the settings in capacitor backed RAM.
I can say this: I have seen laserjet IIs, which use EPROMs from circa 1992, with greater than 1 million page count that *still* function. And the EPROMs are still good, too.
*Everything* else is more likely to fail than the EPROM. The capacitors are likely to dry out in about 30 years, so they're most likely of the non-mechanical parts to break first.
I buy nothing *but* used printers. Normally I just open them up, give them a good cleaning, oil up what needs to be oiled, fix what's broken, and, for example, I now have a full featured Laserjet 5si for less than $150 US which is going to last a LOT longer than any of the cheap plastic garbage HP is shovelling now.
>I can use the CD-RW to back up software, but I can't run a pirated program through the CD-RW with out first getting ILLEGAL software for a key-gen.
Ummm, nooooo...
You can easily make an illegal copy of an audio CD with a CD burner using the software included with it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>The CD-RW does not nativily (sp) pirate software.
Sure it does. It can pirate windows XP in a flash. Your "keygen" idea is a complete non-sequitur -- you don't need a keygen for windows XP. A corporate windows XP can be installed multiple times without problems. Microsoft *designed* it to work that way. Software included with all CD burners will easily copy a windows XP disk.
>Mod chips have no other use than to let you play pirated games.
Modchips can do the following legal activities:
- Homebrew software
- Region-free
- Macrovision off
- Backup software
- Faster boot time
- Hard Drive explorer
I thought we had covered that. Perhaps you haven't read fully about modchips?
>If you wanted to play your "home brew" games you can. Just buy a licensed Development box from Sony. Its pretty simple.
The Sony development box lacks:
- Macrovision off
- Hard Drive explorer
- Games Region Free (well, this I assume, I don't know)
- DVD Region Free (this, I know, for sure, won't be in the development box)
- Faster boot time
Furthermore, I doubt just anyone can buy a Sony development box. Can they? Could I?
If so, I'd love to get my hands on one. Point me to the source!
If regular consumers cannot purchase such a box from Sony, you can understand their need to modchip their console to play Homebrew games, right? In that case, I think we could say modchips are, in fact, Sony's fault. They made them exist. They can stop them existing at any time by letting anyone buy a development PS2 for a resonable price (according to you it will do *most* modchip features). If Sony charges anything more than a few dollars extra for the development box, again, Sony is legitimizing the use of modchips.
>This is why I figured that one seems to need a license to use a PS2, which Sony can terminate the moment you solder a foreign object to the components inside the case.
The law mentions no exception for license. IOW, if it were actually true, no patented invention could be used in the USA.
Of course, there's plenty of exceptions... as I noted.
>Whether or not one uses the patent documents doesn't mean jack. One can be held fully liable for patent infringement and have to pay damages even if one does not know the existence of a patent, which is the big thing that allows for the patent extortion stories that one so often sees on Slashdot.
All I can say is this: If a modchip maker actually violated a patent, you can be absolutely assured Sony would have had them punished with the same zeal they punished the Messiah team for breaking DRM law in the UK. Really, Sony has shown that modchips don't violate patents through their lack of action.
The code is absolutely available for Sony or anyone else to take a look at, it is 100% open source. Peruse it at your leisure, it's right here. The patents are free too, but I don't know where to find them, sorry. Please, take a look at both and if you find any discrepencies, report them to both me and Sony.
That's how sure I am there's no patent infringement going on in a modchip.
>Yes, now that I am aware of U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., I do concede the argument on patent grounds, though I may start a new thread about the DMCA/EUCD issues.
Feel free. But you won't get an argument out of me: Modchips are *clearly* illegal in countries where the DMCA/EUCD are enforced. Fortunately, I don't live in one of those countries...:-D
>because what you are selling allows you to pirate.
So does a CD-RW drive. And I don't see you crying to Best Buy about that.
You should see by now the very basis of your argument is ludicrous. You like using a CD-RW to backup your software, I'm sure. Well, just as you use one to backup your software, others use one to pirate it.
>Sony still patented the rest of the console, and the claims for, say, the graphics synthesizer still apply to a modded PS2.
Yeah. Exactly. That's why we don't have pirate consoles. We have modchips. A modchip doesn't replace _anything_ on a PS2, it simply adds to it. In the case of an XBOX, it's a little more complicated, since it *does* replace the BIOS chip, but let's stick to the PS2.
I can honestly say there's not a single Ubicom SX28 chip on a PS2 (because I've opened them). And, I know for a fact there's not a single line of Sony code in a modchip. If you don't believe me, you can download the source from team ICE yourself (I'll give you a link if you'd like).
>Did I say it was an oral contract? What's that written receipt that the store gave you?
You mean the one that says "All Sales Final" and doesn't mention anything about how I use the device at all?
Sure, I totally agreed to those terms. Heck, I'll even admit it: I ASKED FOR THEM!
>Did you see the high-speed Internet access demonstration table?
You have better best buys than us. I wish we had that at the Best Buy here. Oh well. It's new. Perhaps in the future...
As for the USC, glad you looked it up for me.
(c) TERRIBLY misquoted.
(b) Yay, cohersion law. Nothing new or interesting here.
(a) Uhhh, you realise that if read at face value this makes a regular person using a PS2 without a modchip liable, too, right? I *highly* doubt the simplified text there means what it says. *highly* doubt it.
But, hey, I'm not a lawyer. Let's see what a real one says, shall we?
In order to be held as a direct infringer of a United States patent under 35 USC 271(a), it is necessary during the life of the patent to have made, used, offered to sell [182] or sold what is claimed in the patent within the United States or to have imported the patented invention into the United States.
*what is claimed in the patent*. IE: You must either:
- Make a PS2 from scratch using the patent documents as your guide (fat chance)
- Use the patent document to help you make the modchip (wasn't done, since the patent documents weren't even CLOSE to detailed enough)
- Tried to sell the patent to someone
- Imported a PS2 to the US
They are *not* talking about the end product in any way, shape, or form. It's all about the patent itself. I suppose if I were to send a PS2 to the US, I'd be breaking the law. That's silly, but not a problem.
ACRA assumed the court would conclude Lexmark customers have that right due to what is called the "doctrine of exhaustion." Roughly the patent law equivalent of the first sale doctrine in copyright law, the doctrine of exhaustion says the patent holder's rights cease - are "exhausted" -- once the product is actually sold. Buyers have an implied license to use the patented product as they see fit, including reselling it or fixing it.
Doctrine that holds that, once a copy of a copyrighted work is in circulation, the author has no further right to control its distribution.
Here's a document from a department of law, albeit from another country, upholding that the doctrine of exhaustion applies to patented items.
The doctrine of exhaustion of rights applies to patents. Thus, the specific object of a patent is the exclusive right to utilise an invention with a view to the manufacture and first putting into circulation of i
>Without the permission of Sony, you cannot modify the PS2 to break the built in DRM.
Not in America or the UK, you can't, you have all sorts of wacky laws against it (which completely screw up the market, but that's a completely separate discussion).
Look, I don't live in either of those countries. I live in a free country. We can do things like that in Canada and nobody cares. It's a great country. Come by and enjoy it sometime! You might like it enough to stay! It's like the US was 30 years ago. We are even allowed to download MP3s from the internet. Even sharing them is legal. Heck, so legal we made special laws ensuring it would remain legal. Things run so smoothly, sometimes I don't understand why I voted against the returning Prime Minister this last elction, but hey, what the hell.
>If you were to sell the modify the speakers and resell them under the Bose name, then Bose would take up issue with you.
Definately, that's misrepresentation (back to square one). However, if I explained what I did to the originally BOSE speakers, I'm ok. Let's say I took out the original drivers and put in new ones, I could say:
"Model XYZ BOSE speakers with replaced JoeSixpack drivers".
At worst, BOSE can complain I'm using their name in the Ad. I might have to say "Model XYZ speakers with replaced JoeSixpack drivers" so that I don't mention their pesky trademark.
Surprise, surprise, I don't say "Sony" on my ads for this exact reason. Or, if I do, it's a mistake, which I'll remove the minute I notice it.
This is the same way I'm ok selling a "PS2 including modchip". Because, that's what it is. It's a PS2 with a modchip. Like a Yugo with a ford sticker.
>Thats a slippery slope. The CD Recorder only copies the game. Nothing wrong with that. The mod chip actually allows it to be played. Thats where the legal issue starts.
Your license is OK with someone making copies of the game, but not ok with them using a modchip to play them?
So, if they used HD loader, which isn't a "ModChip" to play copies of your games, that's ok with your license? Perhaps you should be updating your license to cover devices that copy your game. But, then, there's that slippery slope you mentioned.
Overall, perhaps I don't understand. Please, if you can clear it up, I'd appreciate it.
>Even without the DMCA, the modchip maker is subject not to a contract but rather to Sony's patents.
No. Sony never patented a modchip. The only time this worked is for Macrovision. They would build a "protection" scheme, then patent all the obvious ways to break it.
>Offer + acceptance + exchange of consideration = contract in any country whose contract system is based on British common law. A signature is merely one way of indicating acceptance.
Oral contracts are so totally useless. But hey, if someone wants to sue me on an oral contract, what the hell. It'll be fun, and profitable for me ("barratry" countersuit).
>Microsoft and Sony might argue that the contract specifies a return period and that consideration isn't irrevocably exchanged until the return period expires.
Okay. Sounds great. That'd work if Sony and Microsoft would take back my modchipped consoles. Too bad they won't. Hell, I don't even think it would work then, because, again, I didn't accept their contract. I told them to go to hell and they still sold me what I wanted.
>First of all, look for the word "Patent" on the box. It is unlawful to use a device embodying a patented invention without permission of the patent holder.
Whaaaaat? Case law, please. What you're saying would mean that Matchbox could sue me for sticking a "Hot Wheels" up my ass (when I was a kid they all said 'patent pending'... I'm sure it's passed by now). Again, honestly, you can't be at all serious.
>Even better, some of the newer products' packaging has language to the effect of "This sale is governed by terms and conditions, which you can read at http://example.com/product/EULA/"
"Prosecutor, I don't have internet access. Sony never offered it to me in a way that is commonly available and understood to all people, such as by phone or on paper. 50% of households don't have internet access. The box didn't come with any free internet access, nor can their console download a webpage. In fact, just to read the EULA, I had to put in a ModChip and run linux on the console -- so I could download their webpage!"
>And the "first sale" link you gave refers only to copyrights, not to patents.
Exactly. That's because there *IS NO* law at all making it even remotely illegal to use a patented product any way you like, apart from:
- Breaking a good faith contract (there is definately *NO* good faith in a contract that lets me tell the salesman I'll be breaking it before I buy it)
- Breaking general patent law, such as duplicating the device.
>Is the purchase really a purchase until the 7-day return period has expired?
What's this "7-day return period" all about? I already said there's no warranty. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll be a little more: I AM NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN THE CONSOLES. THEY WILL NEVER TAKE THEM BACK. EVER.
By the way, you *definately* own the item even during the warranty period. Any talk to the contrary will meet with me displaying the rules of warranties of the USA to you. Ahhh, what the fuck, let me show them to you now. I've read them because I'm a retailer, and I often sell to the US as well as Canada.
There's *nothing* in there saying a consumer isn't allowed to do something with the product that the retailer doesn't like. The closest you can get is this, which is that if the consumer modifies the product in a manner that causes it to operate improperly you can void the warranty on that part of the item only. Heck, technically, my PS2s are still warranted even though I break the seal. Not that I care.
Seriously, I think you need to explore the law on these topics more. If I (a store) still owned the item during the warranty period, I could go to the person's house and demand my "property" back. Do you seriously think that if you buy a game from Best Buy they can require you give it them back?
>The mod chip allows the user to break the licensing model. REGARDLESS of it sucking up power.
A CD Recorder lets them do that too.
Do you honestly believe you could sue someone for putting your game in a CD Recorder? I'm not even saying they're going to access it. They're just placing the game in it.
If not, why do you think someone playing a purchased original copy of your game in their console is breaking your license? Where's the difference? Is it because they're going to play the game? You have your license written like that? (If so, seek legal advice, quick!)
>Not once did I mention licensing mod chips. Where in god's name are you getting this from?
I'm sorry. I was under the impression you were arguing that modchips break your license. As you admit you have no license with ModChip makers, I see now the error.
>You certainly can take a PS2, add a mod chip and sell it as the "PS2 Super 900" or whatever. I won't argue that. Sony will. And from the looks of it, if you are in the UK, Sony will win.
I'm in Canada. Lucky for me, Canadian law actually has a section of copyright law defined legitimizing the making and use of backups. Which, in turn, legitimizes devices that allow you to use backups.
>There are hundreds of different murder classifications just so they can prosecute someone to the fullest extent. Lawyers don't care about having to argue more and more in a case. Its what they are paid to do.
I always thought all those laws were there because murder is such a serious crime, the murderer should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that the crime of murder really does need to be exactly defined. But hey, whatever, it's not important that we agree on this point.
>P.S. if you were licensed to sell the BOSE speakers you would make more money.
Perhaps. Whether or not I'd make more money being licensed or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether I'm breaking the law or not re-selling BOSE speakers without a license from BOSE to do so. I say no.
>There are only three components to a contract: offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. Which do you find missing?
Acceptance. Not once did a ModChip maker accept the license of a software company. If they did, they'd be breaking the law.
BTW: Your stupid "submit" laws are dumb (thank God I live in Canada), but what the hell, they're *still* not being broken, because at no time did the ModChip manufacturer or installer accept the license.
As far as offer goes, I've *never* seen a license offered for a console video game. Perhaps you can correct me, but the licenses are generally inside the manual, inside the box. Upon purchase, the license wasn't even understood to exist. Upon putting the game in the console, the user isn't even REMINDED that there's a license in the manual he needs to accept.
Now, for exchange of consideration. Sounds great. So, since the contract is offered AFTER the game is sold, where's the reverse consideration from the company for the user accepting the license? Are they being paid not to install a ModChip in their console?
Doubtful, but hey, I'm willing to listen if you can find me:
- An offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
when it comes to ModChips and game consoles.
>Sony offers the following terms: "If you walk into a store selling PS2s and agree not to mod any PS2 you buy, then we will give you a PS2 when you give us $150." You accept, you indicate your acceptance by handing over $150, and the exchange of money for a PS2 seals the deal.
They do? Where's that on the box? When I buy consoles, I tell the stores I'm buying them to put in modchips (partly so they stop begging me to buy their [useless] PSP [extended warranty]), and they say "COOL! Tell me where you are... we get lots of customers who want them, but Sony won't let us sell them if we want to remain Sony licensed". So, I definately am not told by the shop that I can't buy the console to mod.
Only *once* did a store appear angry about it. And, wouldn't you know it, it was because I didn't notice someone standing in line behind me. The minute they got their business done, I stepped back in line and flashed a wad of $100s to the store owner. All of a sudden, when I said I wanted all their refurbished consoles, they said "Oh, hey, that's GREAT. You only want ones with three screws in the expansion bay? NO PROBLEM! Gimme ten minutes". A few minutes later I handed them a bunch of nice C notes and everyone was satisfied.
Again:
- No offer of a contract (not on the box)
- Definately no acceptance
- No consideration
In fact, if *anything* there was an offer to sell for the *purpose* of installing the chip. Which, I suppose, by US law, I completely, and wholeheartedly, accepted.:-D
>Even if such a license were required, you granted an implied license when you posted your comment after having created an account after having read Slashdot's TOS.
And Sony granted me an implied license to mod the console when their warranty seal only said I'd lose the warranty if I open the console, because their "license" (good lord, it's a sticker) didn't mention "YOU MAY NOT INSTALL FOREIGN ITEMS IN THIS CONSOLE". Not that Sony has *ANY* legal right to imply new contract terms after the purchase, but what the hell.
>That's different, as a gift does not create a contract because it involves no exchange of consideration.
Ummm, no, the satellite receivers are sold. If you'd like to buy one, they're usually about $150 from MTA. Whoooooops!
>Only the patent holder may authorize others to make, use, offer for sale, or sell a product embodying a patented invention. Do you claim that the Bose loudspeakers you plan to resell aren't patented?
So. Wait a second. You're saying you can't sell anything that's patented to others? Oh, you can't be serious. That means you can't sell the speakers second hand either.
>I bet I can find some dictionary which defines stealing amongst others as "copyright infringement" (I've seen a link in another Slashdot discussion, don't feel like digging it up. Unless you're playing dumb on purpose you won't need it anyway).
Well, I tell you what. If you can find a modern edition of a dictionary that has "piracy" without the copyright infringement clause, I'm game.
As far as your idea that old dictionaries would have "copyright infringement" defined as stealing, I find that tought to believe, considering that old dictionaries generally didn't even deal with the (misnomer) of IP.
>Besides, the sarcasm was marked by the quotation marks and the context the word was used in.
Ahh! I see. So you were being sarcastic earlier, you actually don't believe you'll find "copyright infringement" in the dictionary. I completely understand. Please accept my humble apologies for being so completely incorrect. I'd delete what I have the paragraph up, but I want you to understand just how incorrect I was. Again, my humble apologies for not understanding this.
>In this case a non-sarcastic use doesn't make any sense, why should he tell you to complain to people with legal backups?
I don't know, why?
The whole argument that because modchips let you make backups of your games makes them wrong is just... well... it's very confusing to me. I can't give an answer, because I don't even understand the premise.
>He was arguing against people warezing games and claiming they need the chip for backup purposes (I don't care whether you do, there are enough doing it).
AHHH! I see! So, he's on the old "because you can use it for bad, it's all bad" saw? That's easy to understand (although totally without logic).
We need to ban the internet, because, hey, most warez come from the internet nowadays.
>You have twice as many possible charged to put against them, thereby making it an even greater possibility that they'll get to the courts.
And the court case takes twice as long to argue, and the defence has twice as many chances to find inconsistencies in the prosecution's claims.
>We are very clearly talking about license breaking. Software companies are licensed to distribute games in a particular region. By offering a region breaking chip you are allowing somoene else to profit when they aren't supposed to. Thats how licensing works.
That's exciting. What kind of country is it where you can enter a contract without a signature? That's awesome. Perhaps I can try one on for size:
"By clicking 'submit' you owe me $100"
What license are you talking about? Do you think the modchip makers used your software? Hell no. No signature = no agreement = no license.
Don't start telling me that because the modchip works with your software that there's some form of implied license, lest I start telling you that the warranty on my motherboard also applies to my mouse.
>My example involved replacing all badges on the Yugo with focus branding. The whole point of that is that the consumer is supposed to think he is getting a focus.
Oh. I see. So you think they're selling a Yugo as a Ford. That's definately illegal.
When I sell a modchipped (I didn't sign your "license", so go suck on a lemon) PS2, I don't sell it as an XBOX. I sell it like this "Brand New PS2 V9/V10 with Magic/Mars Modchip - $399.99" (CDN). If you think that's misrepresentation, well, I think you should look closer. Here's my ad, if you would like to look at it.
>Of course I didn't license them to sell their mod chips.
I didn't license you to reply. Does that mean you're not allowed to?
>Their mod chips infringe on the licenses that I already sold to others.
And when someone brings me a satellite receiver that's locked out because it was given to them (NO SIGNATURE) by a religious community to only watch their station, and I unlock it, you think I'm infringing a license?
Get real.
>Thats why I am sueing them!!! I can't make money if they circumnavigate my licensed sellers.
WTF? So... wait... Right now I'm not "licensed" to sell BOSE in any way, shape, or form. BOSE won't sell me anything wholesale without me being licensed. I say, "fuck that", I walk down to the BOSE store, buy up some speaker systems, and I put them in my store for sale.
And you're suggesting I'm breaking the law? Are you INSANE?
I think you need to read up on contract law a bit more.
"The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy."
>You fully well realize that these "backups" are "backups" of games they DIDN'T pay money for, why are you pretending any different?
Uhhh, he didn't say that.
>Ah, yes, now I remember, on Slashdot sarcasm isn't, right?
On the internet, if you plan to be sarcastic, I can't see your face. Use an emoticon if you want to be sarcastic. Here, I'll try one on for size:;^D
And, on this point, *my* friends have backup copies, using their rights as ensrined in Canadian Copyright Law. Notice my lack of emoticon. Notice that means... they're legal backup copies.
I really couldn't care less if you believe me or not. (Pedants: read me first)
Now, if that isn't complete doublespeak, I don't know what is!
More laws = harder to enfore. You have more work to do to prove the defendant guilty.
>If I owned proprietary technology and licensed its use I would most certainly want to make sure that I made every penny I was supposed to.
Uhhh, yeah, we're not talking IP license breaking, we're talking misrepresentation. The former requires an agreement between two parties to mean anything, the latter requires that someone sells something that isn't what it is.
Selling a Yugo with a Ford stick is COMPLETELY legal if you write on the ad "2004 YUGO WITH FORD STICKER!".
>If I didn't want to make money, I wouldn't have licensed it.
Then... why would you make a license with a modchip maker?
Clearly you didn't. So they never broke a license. Therefore, your beef isn't with the modchip maker.
Would ford sue you for fucking with your focus? No.. but they would sue the pants off of you if you took a truck load 20 year old Yugos and put focus badges on them just to sell them to the masses. Essentially thats what this judgement defends against. Selling a product that cheats a license holder (or in my focus example a trademark holder) out of making a buck.
Misrepresentation and trademark infringement have generally been illegal since before we had electricity.
Why the hell do we need TWO laws to do the same thing? Because it's *FUN*?
Slashdot Mirror
>(disclaimer: Is this available in Canada?)
Yes and no. Yes, it's available in Canada. Yes, it's free on certain satellite providers (read: Unencrypted).
No, apart from that, generally, any station originating from outside Canada is illegal in Canada, unless it's whitewashed for 35% Canadian content, which I highly doubt Muzak is.
Since it's illegal to pay for US TV & Radio services in Canada, but legal to listen/watch them if they're unencrypted... ...DishNetwork CD audio channels to the rescue!
What kind of design are you using where you are re-writing EPROMs over 100,000 times?
The *only* sector of memory that I could see failing is the page counter. A good desgin would allow the printer to continue to function despite a broken EPROM sector containing the page counter. A cheap and nasty design would simply store the settings in capacitor backed RAM.
I can say this: I have seen laserjet IIs, which use EPROMs from circa 1992, with greater than 1 million page count that *still* function. And the EPROMs are still good, too.
*Everything* else is more likely to fail than the EPROM. The capacitors are likely to dry out in about 30 years, so they're most likely of the non-mechanical parts to break first.
I buy nothing *but* used printers. Normally I just open them up, give them a good cleaning, oil up what needs to be oiled, fix what's broken, and, for example, I now have a full featured Laserjet 5si for less than $150 US which is going to last a LOT longer than any of the cheap plastic garbage HP is shovelling now.
>I can use the CD-RW to back up software, but I can't run a pirated program through the CD-RW with out first getting ILLEGAL software for a key-gen.
Ummm, nooooo...
You can easily make an illegal copy of an audio CD with a CD burner using the software included with it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>The CD-RW does not nativily (sp) pirate software.
Sure it does. It can pirate windows XP in a flash. Your "keygen" idea is a complete non-sequitur -- you don't need a keygen for windows XP. A corporate windows XP can be installed multiple times without problems. Microsoft *designed* it to work that way. Software included with all CD burners will easily copy a windows XP disk.
>Mod chips have no other use than to let you play pirated games.
Modchips can do the following legal activities:
- Homebrew software
- Region-free
- Macrovision off
- Backup software
- Faster boot time
- Hard Drive explorer
I thought we had covered that. Perhaps you haven't read fully about modchips?
>If you wanted to play your "home brew" games you can. Just buy a licensed Development box from Sony. Its pretty simple.
The Sony development box lacks:
- Macrovision off
- Hard Drive explorer
- Games Region Free (well, this I assume, I don't know)
- DVD Region Free (this, I know, for sure, won't be in the development box)
- Faster boot time
Furthermore, I doubt just anyone can buy a Sony development box. Can they? Could I?
If so, I'd love to get my hands on one. Point me to the source!
If regular consumers cannot purchase such a box from Sony, you can understand their need to modchip their console to play Homebrew games, right? In that case, I think we could say modchips are, in fact, Sony's fault. They made them exist. They can stop them existing at any time by letting anyone buy a development PS2 for a resonable price (according to you it will do *most* modchip features). If Sony charges anything more than a few dollars extra for the development box, again, Sony is legitimizing the use of modchips.
>This is why I figured that one seems to need a license to use a PS2, which Sony can terminate the moment you solder a foreign object to the components inside the case.
:-D
The law mentions no exception for license. IOW, if it were actually true, no patented invention could be used in the USA.
Of course, there's plenty of exceptions... as I noted.
>Whether or not one uses the patent documents doesn't mean jack. One can be held fully liable for patent infringement and have to pay damages even if one does not know the existence of a patent, which is the big thing that allows for the patent extortion stories that one so often sees on Slashdot.
All I can say is this: If a modchip maker actually violated a patent, you can be absolutely assured Sony would have had them punished with the same zeal they punished the Messiah team for breaking DRM law in the UK. Really, Sony has shown that modchips don't violate patents through their lack of action.
The code is absolutely available for Sony or anyone else to take a look at, it is 100% open source. Peruse it at your leisure, it's right here. The patents are free too, but I don't know where to find them, sorry. Please, take a look at both and if you find any discrepencies, report them to both me and Sony.
That's how sure I am there's no patent infringement going on in a modchip.
>Yes, now that I am aware of U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., I do concede the argument on patent grounds, though I may start a new thread about the DMCA/EUCD issues.
Feel free. But you won't get an argument out of me: Modchips are *clearly* illegal in countries where the DMCA/EUCD are enforced. Fortunately, I don't live in one of those countries...
>because what you are selling allows you to pirate.
So does a CD-RW drive. And I don't see you crying to Best Buy about that.
You should see by now the very basis of your argument is ludicrous. You like using a CD-RW to backup your software, I'm sure. Well, just as you use one to backup your software, others use one to pirate it.
QED.
>Are you some kind of lawyer or why are you arguing semantics now?
Hello, you were the one that said quotes mean sarcasm. Not me. If that's semantics, I guess you can call me a semantitician.
>How many people use the internet for legitimate vs. illegitimate purposes? How's that ratio for modchips or heroin or something like that?
Ooooo! Oooooo! I know!
Probably about the same ratio of abusers of ephedrine to legal users of the drug!
(FYI, ephedrine is found in cold/cough medicine)
BAN IT NOW!
[The saw of "one use is bad spoils all good uses" is thouroughly debunked, again]
>Sony still patented the rest of the console, and the claims for, say, the graphics synthesizer still apply to a modded PS2.
Yeah. Exactly. That's why we don't have pirate consoles. We have modchips. A modchip doesn't replace _anything_ on a PS2, it simply adds to it. In the case of an XBOX, it's a little more complicated, since it *does* replace the BIOS chip, but let's stick to the PS2.
I can honestly say there's not a single Ubicom SX28 chip on a PS2 (because I've opened them). And, I know for a fact there's not a single line of Sony code in a modchip. If you don't believe me, you can download the source from team ICE yourself (I'll give you a link if you'd like).
>Did I say it was an oral contract? What's that written receipt that the store gave you?
You mean the one that says "All Sales Final" and doesn't mention anything about how I use the device at all?
Sure, I totally agreed to those terms. Heck, I'll even admit it: I ASKED FOR THEM!
>Did you see the high-speed Internet access demonstration table?
You have better best buys than us. I wish we had that at the Best Buy here. Oh well. It's new. Perhaps in the future...
As for the USC, glad you looked it up for me.
(c) TERRIBLY misquoted.
(b) Yay, cohersion law. Nothing new or interesting here.
(a) Uhhh, you realise that if read at face value this makes a regular person using a PS2 without a modchip liable, too, right? I *highly* doubt the simplified text there means what it says. *highly* doubt it.
But, hey, I'm not a lawyer. Let's see what a real one says, shall we?
In order to be held as a direct infringer of a United States patent under 35 USC 271(a), it is necessary during the life of the patent to have made, used, offered to sell [182] or sold what is claimed in the patent within the United States or to have imported the patented invention into the United States.
*what is claimed in the patent*. IE: You must either:
- Make a PS2 from scratch using the patent documents as your guide (fat chance)
- Use the patent document to help you make the modchip (wasn't done, since the patent documents weren't even CLOSE to detailed enough)
- Tried to sell the patent to someone
- Imported a PS2 to the US
They are *not* talking about the end product in any way, shape, or form. It's all about the patent itself. I suppose if I were to send a PS2 to the US, I'd be breaking the law. That's silly, but not a problem.
Here's case law on the matter.
ACRA assumed the court would conclude Lexmark
customers have that right due to what is called the "doctrine of
exhaustion." Roughly the patent law equivalent of the first sale
doctrine in copyright law, the doctrine of exhaustion says the patent
holder's rights cease - are "exhausted" -- once the product is actually
sold. Buyers have an implied license to use the patented product as they
see fit, including reselling it or fixing it.
Doctine of exhaustion:
Doctrine that holds that, once a copy of a copyrighted work is in circulation, the author has no further right to control its distribution.
Here's a document from a department of law, albeit from another country, upholding that the doctrine of exhaustion applies to patented items.
The doctrine of exhaustion of rights applies to patents. Thus, the specific object of a patent is the exclusive right to utilise an invention with a view to the manufacture and first putting into circulation of i
>If you happen to use the HDLoader to copy a game that you didn't purchased (pirated per say) then you are breaking the license model.
So, as long as the modchip isn't used to play a pirated game, you're ok with it then?
In that case, why are we arguing? My ad clearly states I won't sell anything for the purposes of piracy. Perhaps I missed your point.
>Without the permission of Sony, you cannot modify the PS2 to break the built in DRM.
Not in America or the UK, you can't, you have all sorts of wacky laws against it (which completely screw up the market, but that's a completely separate discussion).
Look, I don't live in either of those countries. I live in a free country. We can do things like that in Canada and nobody cares. It's a great country. Come by and enjoy it sometime! You might like it enough to stay! It's like the US was 30 years ago. We are even allowed to download MP3s from the internet. Even sharing them is legal. Heck, so legal we made special laws ensuring it would remain legal. Things run so smoothly, sometimes I don't understand why I voted against the returning Prime Minister this last elction, but hey, what the hell.
>spammers will simply call you from offshore countries using VOIP or POTS, they can block the caller ID making blocking very hard for providers
No problem. Providers will just pull a "Telus" and block such messages from countries that refuse to respect the law.
The answer to that is...?
>If you were to sell the modify the speakers and resell them under the Bose name, then Bose would take up issue with you.
Definately, that's misrepresentation (back to square one). However, if I explained what I did to the originally BOSE speakers, I'm ok. Let's say I took out the original drivers and put in new ones, I could say:
"Model XYZ BOSE speakers with replaced JoeSixpack drivers".
At worst, BOSE can complain I'm using their name in the Ad. I might have to say "Model XYZ speakers with replaced JoeSixpack drivers" so that I don't mention their pesky trademark.
Surprise, surprise, I don't say "Sony" on my ads for this exact reason. Or, if I do, it's a mistake, which I'll remove the minute I notice it.
This is the same way I'm ok selling a "PS2 including modchip". Because, that's what it is. It's a PS2 with a modchip. Like a Yugo with a ford sticker.
>Thats a slippery slope. The CD Recorder only copies the game. Nothing wrong with that. The mod chip actually allows it to be played. Thats where the legal issue starts.
Your license is OK with someone making copies of the game, but not ok with them using a modchip to play them?
So, if they used HD loader, which isn't a "ModChip" to play copies of your games, that's ok with your license? Perhaps you should be updating your license to cover devices that copy your game. But, then, there's that slippery slope you mentioned.
Overall, perhaps I don't understand. Please, if you can clear it up, I'd appreciate it.
>Even without the DMCA, the modchip maker is subject not to a contract but rather to Sony's patents.
No. Sony never patented a modchip. The only time this worked is for Macrovision. They would build a "protection" scheme, then patent all the obvious ways to break it.
>Offer + acceptance + exchange of consideration = contract in any country whose contract system is based on British common law. A signature is merely one way of indicating acceptance.
Oral contracts are so totally useless. But hey, if someone wants to sue me on an oral contract, what the hell. It'll be fun, and profitable for me ("barratry" countersuit).
>Microsoft and Sony might argue that the contract specifies a return period and that consideration isn't irrevocably exchanged until the return period expires.
Okay. Sounds great. That'd work if Sony and Microsoft would take back my modchipped consoles. Too bad they won't. Hell, I don't even think it would work then, because, again, I didn't accept their contract. I told them to go to hell and they still sold me what I wanted.
>First of all, look for the word "Patent" on the box. It is unlawful to use a device embodying a patented invention without permission of the patent holder.
Whaaaaat? Case law, please. What you're saying would mean that Matchbox could sue me for sticking a "Hot Wheels" up my ass (when I was a kid they all said 'patent pending'... I'm sure it's passed by now). Again, honestly, you can't be at all serious.
>Even better, some of the newer products' packaging has language to the effect of "This sale is governed by terms and conditions, which you can read at http://example.com/product/EULA/"
"Prosecutor, I don't have internet access. Sony never offered it to me in a way that is commonly available and understood to all people, such as by phone or on paper. 50% of households don't have internet access. The box didn't come with any free internet access, nor can their console download a webpage. In fact, just to read the EULA, I had to put in a ModChip and run linux on the console -- so I could download their webpage!"
>And the "first sale" link you gave refers only to copyrights, not to patents.
Exactly. That's because there *IS NO* law at all making it even remotely illegal to use a patented product any way you like, apart from:
- Breaking a good faith contract (there is definately *NO* good faith in a contract that lets me tell the salesman I'll be breaking it before I buy it)
- Breaking general patent law, such as duplicating the device.
>Is the purchase really a purchase until the 7-day return period has expired?
What's this "7-day return period" all about? I already said there's no warranty. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll be a little more: I AM NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN THE CONSOLES. THEY WILL NEVER TAKE THEM BACK. EVER.
By the way, you *definately* own the item even during the warranty period. Any talk to the contrary will meet with me displaying the rules of warranties of the USA to you. Ahhh, what the fuck, let me show them to you now. I've read them because I'm a retailer, and I often sell to the US as well as Canada.
There's *nothing* in there saying a consumer isn't allowed to do something with the product that the retailer doesn't like. The closest you can get is this, which is that if the consumer modifies the product in a manner that causes it to operate improperly you can void the warranty on that part of the item only. Heck, technically, my PS2s are still warranted even though I break the seal. Not that I care.
Seriously, I think you need to explore the law on these topics more. If I (a store) still owned the item during the warranty period, I could go to the person's house and demand my "property" back. Do you seriously think that if you buy a game from Best Buy they can require you give it them back?
>The mod chip allows the user to break the licensing model. REGARDLESS of it sucking up power.
A CD Recorder lets them do that too.
Do you honestly believe you could sue someone for putting your game in a CD Recorder? I'm not even saying they're going to access it. They're just placing the game in it.
If not, why do you think someone playing a purchased original copy of your game in their console is breaking your license? Where's the difference? Is it because they're going to play the game? You have your license written like that? (If so, seek legal advice, quick!)
>Not once did I mention licensing mod chips. Where in god's name are you getting this from?
I'm sorry. I was under the impression you were arguing that modchips break your license. As you admit you have no license with ModChip makers, I see now the error.
>You certainly can take a PS2, add a mod chip and sell it as the "PS2 Super 900" or whatever. I won't argue that. Sony will. And from the looks of it, if you are in the UK, Sony will win.
I'm in Canada. Lucky for me, Canadian law actually has a section of copyright law defined legitimizing the making and use of backups. Which, in turn, legitimizes devices that allow you to use backups.
>There are hundreds of different murder classifications just so they can prosecute someone to the fullest extent. Lawyers don't care about having to argue more and more in a case. Its what they are paid to do.
I always thought all those laws were there because murder is such a serious crime, the murderer should be given the benefit of the doubt, and that the crime of murder really does need to be exactly defined. But hey, whatever, it's not important that we agree on this point.
>P.S. if you were licensed to sell the BOSE speakers you would make more money.
Perhaps. Whether or not I'd make more money being licensed or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether I'm breaking the law or not re-selling BOSE speakers without a license from BOSE to do so. I say no.
>There are only three components to a contract: offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. Which do you find missing?
:-D
Acceptance. Not once did a ModChip maker accept the license of a software company. If they did, they'd be breaking the law.
BTW: Your stupid "submit" laws are dumb (thank God I live in Canada), but what the hell, they're *still* not being broken, because at no time did the ModChip manufacturer or installer accept the license.
As far as offer goes, I've *never* seen a license offered for a console video game. Perhaps you can correct me, but the licenses are generally inside the manual, inside the box. Upon purchase, the license wasn't even understood to exist. Upon putting the game in the console, the user isn't even REMINDED that there's a license in the manual he needs to accept.
Now, for exchange of consideration. Sounds great. So, since the contract is offered AFTER the game is sold, where's the reverse consideration from the company for the user accepting the license? Are they being paid not to install a ModChip in their console?
Doubtful, but hey, I'm willing to listen if you can find me:
- An offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
when it comes to ModChips and game consoles.
>Sony offers the following terms: "If you walk into a store selling PS2s and agree not to mod any PS2 you buy, then we will give you a PS2 when you give us $150." You accept, you indicate your acceptance by handing over $150, and the exchange of money for a PS2 seals the deal.
They do? Where's that on the box? When I buy consoles, I tell the stores I'm buying them to put in modchips (partly so they stop begging me to buy their [useless] PSP [extended warranty]), and they say "COOL! Tell me where you are... we get lots of customers who want them, but Sony won't let us sell them if we want to remain Sony licensed". So, I definately am not told by the shop that I can't buy the console to mod.
Only *once* did a store appear angry about it. And, wouldn't you know it, it was because I didn't notice someone standing in line behind me. The minute they got their business done, I stepped back in line and flashed a wad of $100s to the store owner. All of a sudden, when I said I wanted all their refurbished consoles, they said "Oh, hey, that's GREAT. You only want ones with three screws in the expansion bay? NO PROBLEM! Gimme ten minutes". A few minutes later I handed them a bunch of nice C notes and everyone was satisfied.
Again:
- No offer of a contract (not on the box)
- Definately no acceptance
- No consideration
In fact, if *anything* there was an offer to sell for the *purpose* of installing the chip. Which, I suppose, by US law, I completely, and wholeheartedly, accepted.
>Even if such a license were required, you granted an implied license when you posted your comment after having created an account after having read Slashdot's TOS.
And Sony granted me an implied license to mod the console when their warranty seal only said I'd lose the warranty if I open the console, because their "license" (good lord, it's a sticker) didn't mention "YOU MAY NOT INSTALL FOREIGN ITEMS IN THIS CONSOLE". Not that Sony has *ANY* legal right to imply new contract terms after the purchase, but what the hell.
>That's different, as a gift does not create a contract because it involves no exchange of consideration.
Ummm, no, the satellite receivers are sold. If you'd like to buy one, they're usually about $150 from MTA. Whoooooops!
>Only the patent holder may authorize others to make, use, offer for sale, or sell a product embodying a patented invention. Do you claim that the Bose loudspeakers you plan to resell aren't patented?
So. Wait a second. You're saying you can't sell anything that's patented to others? Oh, you can't be serious. That means you can't sell the speakers second hand either.
You need to rea
>I bet I can find some dictionary which defines stealing amongst others as "copyright infringement" (I've seen a link in another Slashdot discussion, don't feel like digging it up. Unless you're playing dumb on purpose you won't need it anyway).
Well, I tell you what. If you can find a modern edition of a dictionary that has "piracy" without the copyright infringement clause, I'm game.
As far as your idea that old dictionaries would have "copyright infringement" defined as stealing, I find that tought to believe, considering that old dictionaries generally didn't even deal with the (misnomer) of IP.
>Besides, the sarcasm was marked by the quotation marks and the context the word was used in.
Ahh! I see. So you were being sarcastic earlier, you actually don't believe you'll find "copyright infringement" in the dictionary. I completely understand. Please accept my humble apologies for being so completely incorrect. I'd delete what I have the paragraph up, but I want you to understand just how incorrect I was. Again, my humble apologies for not understanding this.
>In this case a non-sarcastic use doesn't make any sense, why should he tell you to complain to people with legal backups?
I don't know, why?
The whole argument that because modchips let you make backups of your games makes them wrong is just... well... it's very confusing to me. I can't give an answer, because I don't even understand the premise.
>He was arguing against people warezing games and claiming they need the chip for backup purposes (I don't care whether you do, there are enough doing it).
AHHH! I see! So, he's on the old "because you can use it for bad, it's all bad" saw? That's easy to understand (although totally without logic).
We need to ban the internet, because, hey, most warez come from the internet nowadays.
Case solved.
>You have twice as many possible charged to put against them, thereby making it an even greater possibility that they'll get to the courts.
And the court case takes twice as long to argue, and the defence has twice as many chances to find inconsistencies in the prosecution's claims.
>We are very clearly talking about license breaking. Software companies are licensed to distribute games in a particular region. By offering a region breaking chip you are allowing somoene else to profit when they aren't supposed to. Thats how licensing works.
That's exciting. What kind of country is it where you can enter a contract without a signature? That's awesome. Perhaps I can try one on for size:
"By clicking 'submit' you owe me $100"
What license are you talking about? Do you think the modchip makers used your software? Hell no. No signature = no agreement = no license.
Don't start telling me that because the modchip works with your software that there's some form of implied license, lest I start telling you that the warranty on my motherboard also applies to my mouse.
>My example involved replacing all badges on the Yugo with focus branding. The whole point of that is that the consumer is supposed to think he is getting a focus.
Oh. I see. So you think they're selling a Yugo as a Ford. That's definately illegal.
When I sell a modchipped (I didn't sign your "license", so go suck on a lemon) PS2, I don't sell it as an XBOX. I sell it like this "Brand New PS2 V9/V10 with Magic/Mars Modchip - $399.99" (CDN). If you think that's misrepresentation, well, I think you should look closer. Here's my ad, if you would like to look at it.
>Of course I didn't license them to sell their mod chips.
I didn't license you to reply. Does that mean you're not allowed to?
>Their mod chips infringe on the licenses that I already sold to others.
And when someone brings me a satellite receiver that's locked out because it was given to them (NO SIGNATURE) by a religious community to only watch their station, and I unlock it, you think I'm infringing a license?
Get real.
>Thats why I am sueing them!!! I can't make money if they circumnavigate my licensed sellers.
WTF? So... wait... Right now I'm not "licensed" to sell BOSE in any way, shape, or form. BOSE won't sell me anything wholesale without me being licensed. I say, "fuck that", I walk down to the BOSE store, buy up some speaker systems, and I put them in my store for sale.
And you're suggesting I'm breaking the law? Are you INSANE?
I think you need to read up on contract law a bit more.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't piracy involve ships and weapons?
;^D
Okay. I'll correct you then.
Piracy:
"The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy."
>You fully well realize that these "backups" are "backups" of games they DIDN'T pay money for, why are you pretending any different?
Uhhh, he didn't say that.
>Ah, yes, now I remember, on Slashdot sarcasm isn't, right?
On the internet, if you plan to be sarcastic, I can't see your face. Use an emoticon if you want to be sarcastic. Here, I'll try one on for size:
And, on this point, *my* friends have backup copies, using their rights as ensrined in Canadian Copyright Law. Notice my lack of emoticon. Notice that means... they're legal backup copies.
I really couldn't care less if you believe me or not. (Pedants: read me first)
>Because it makes them easier to enforce.
Now, if that isn't complete doublespeak, I don't know what is!
More laws = harder to enfore. You have more work to do to prove the defendant guilty.
>If I owned proprietary technology and licensed its use I would most certainly want to make sure that I made every penny I was supposed to.
Uhhh, yeah, we're not talking IP license breaking, we're talking misrepresentation. The former requires an agreement between two parties to mean anything, the latter requires that someone sells something that isn't what it is.
Selling a Yugo with a Ford stick is COMPLETELY legal if you write on the ad "2004 YUGO WITH FORD STICKER!".
>If I didn't want to make money, I wouldn't have licensed it.
Then... why would you make a license with a modchip maker?
Clearly you didn't. So they never broke a license. Therefore, your beef isn't with the modchip maker.
Some of the few remaining free lands in the world. *cries*
Would ford sue you for fucking with your focus? No.. but they would sue the pants off of you if you took a truck load 20 year old Yugos and put focus badges on them just to sell them to the masses. Essentially thats what this judgement defends against. Selling a product that cheats a license holder (or in my focus example a trademark holder) out of making a buck.
Misrepresentation and trademark infringement have generally been illegal since before we had electricity.
Why the hell do we need TWO laws to do the same thing? Because it's *FUN*?
For every anecdote, there's an equal and opposite anecdote.
/me slaps forehead.
I have a now useless copy of Fantavision that I managed to spill lacquer on (or, it seems to be lacquer). Wish I had made a backup copy of it.
OH WAIT!
I DID!
>People put modchips in their consoles so they can play stolen (ie, burned) games.
So, this is "stolen" in the same way taking a picture of the Mona Lisa is "stealing", right?
Use the correct words. It's "pirated".
>The UK is merely taking steps to stop that.
The "guaranteed" solution is to stop selling hard drives and writeable media. Why just stop at modchips?
>Go bitch at your friends who have a bunch of "Backup copies" of games.
OH NO! They like to make backups of stuff that costs $80! *AMAZING*!
I bet you leave your car unlocked, too...