No, that really is the way it is. Unless you signed some contract when you bought you psx, you can do whatever you want with it assuming you don't make it into a bomb or something. Just because sony wants you to believe otherwise doesn't mean its not true.
Noone complains about v-chips because their usuage is optional so the only people they affect are little kids whos parents block out the pr0n channels.
No, he was convicted of piracy and selling unauthorized computer equipment. The two are unrelated charges. The modded psx's were unauthorized computer equipment because they weren't tested by the canadian equivilent of the fcc.
except its not if you understand the difference between civil and criminal actions.
The guy in Australia sold copied games and mod chips because instead of tipping off the authorities, sony decided to sue him.. The guy in canada got arrested by the police and undoubtably had to spend a small amount of time in jail awaiting trial and such.
If enough people are arrested for outrageously stupid reasons, public awareness of what is happening will be raised.
How many is enough? Something like 60% of the people in the US prison system are there because of relatively minor drug related offenses.. they still haven't really convinced anyone that the system should be changed.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways.. Either its a physical object that you buy with no strings attached, or its a physical object that is the delivery device for some licensed content. If its just a delivery device for some licensed content, then yes, you should expect a replacement of the content that you have licensed (minus of course the low cost of the delivery device). If its a physical object, you can't expect a cheap replacement, but you can expect sony to not bitch at you everytime you take it apart and modify it, the same way chevy can't bitch if you decide to lower the ass end of your 4x4 a few inches..
35 The applicants, by a late amendment to the pleadings, alleged that the PlayStation games embodied cinematograph films. They relied on the decision of the Full Court in Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 8, for the proposition that the aggregate of visual images generated by the PlayStation games constituted a "cinematograph film" within the definition in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act and were thus the subject of copyright under Part IV of the Act. This was because the aggregate of visual images was "embodied" in the computer program stored on the CD-ROM. It was no objection to this conclusion that the images appearing on the screen were dependent on player input; nor that the computer program could also be the subject of copyright by virtue of Part III of the Copyright Act. The applicants were the persons who did all things necessary for the production of the first copy of the Films and thus copyright subsisted in them: Copyright Act, ss 22(4), 90. In any event, since the name of Sony Europe appeared on each copy of the Films, it was presumed to be the maker of the Films: Copyright Act, s 131.
It seems retarded to try and make every claim under the sun.. they probably would have been better off to make a somewhat valid claim and stick with it.. throwing in at the last minute that games are also movies, isn't really smart.. esp. considering the judge saw right through it.
Are you a lawyer? I'm almost 100% certain your point 3 is totally wrong. In most area's certain purchases (in this area, I believe anything over $500) have to be in writing. Sure if you had 100000 cash and wanted to buy a house, i doubt anyone would argue with you, but still legally it has to be in writing..
If you walk into a store and pick up a box and buy it, its yours. Thats just how it is, no amount of legalese inside the box can prohibit you from doing anything with it. If perhaps the seller has you sign a contract before selling you the item, then you are bound to it, but if they just sell you a box with something in it no questions asked, the same way you buy peanut butter and the grocery store, you aren't held to anything. You can take it home and use it as its intended or use it to pound nails or use it to collect rain water if you want.
If I buy a car and put a cd player in it that it didn't ship with and sell it my friend down the street, ford can't do dick about it. The same is true if I buy a playstation and put some extra chips in an sell it. It might piss sony off, but the worst its done is void the warranty. Where you can get in trouble with the govt by mass selling these things installed is that the device hasn't been fcc tested or whatever the relevant canadian authority is, so you are selling unapproved computer hardware, which is what a couple of the guys charges were. Its not unapproved because sony isn't happy, its unapproved because it hasn't been tested to ensure that it doesn't shoot out radiation or interfere with tv signals and such.
WRONG: You buy a PS2 from a local dealer, who charges you a fat fee to install a mod chip in your new PS2 (He profits from this activity).
How is that wrong, assuming you knew you were buying the playstation as is and used, not new from sony? Who cares if he profits because he can solder better than i can? There is nothing wrong with modding a playstation. He was arrested for violating copyright law.
No where in the constitution does it say that the public is responsible for helping business's with flawed business models make money.. if it did, we'd be stuck supporting cuecat and iopener and all kinds of other stupid businesses which though a loss leader for something no one would use is a good idea.
Check the manual, which is where the person I know who owns it claims to have seen it. It's also on the SONY web site, for what that's worth.
The great part is that neither of those are worth anything legally speaking.. when you buy a piece of hardware you buy it. period. Doctrine of first sale if nothing else establishes that.. not to mention that for you to agree to some kind of end user hardware license you'd have to know about it and see it in writing before you purchased the device and most likely would have to sign something since the cost of a psx is relatively high.
still, its stupid to mod something as redundant thats not redundant.. it would be better modded as a troll or something else.. redundant implies that its been posted here already or is very similar to something thats been posted already.. but yeh.. this story sucks..
Providing email and storage solutions for millions of customers comes at a considerable cost. In addition, using the Internet today requires more storage space, better ways to share, and new ways to protect your important files. To continue providing iTools services as well as a new set of must-haves for computing on the Internet, Apple is charging an annual fee.
Bought individually, comparable products would cost you an estimated $250 If you're stupid:
Anti-virus: $50 If you're stupid Backup: $40 If you're stupid 100MB of online storage: $60 If you're stupid 15MB of email storage, forwarding and POP/IMAP access: $40+ If you're stupid Home page creation and hosting: $60 If you're stupid
Slashdot Mirror
but thats not how v chips work, thats why they no one cares about them.
So appeal to someone and state your case.
No, that really is the way it is. Unless you signed some contract when you bought you psx, you can do whatever you want with it assuming you don't make it into a bomb or something. Just because sony wants you to believe otherwise doesn't mean its not true.
Noone complains about v-chips because their usuage is optional so the only people they affect are little kids whos parents block out the pr0n channels.
No, he was convicted of piracy and selling unauthorized computer equipment. The two are unrelated charges. The modded psx's were unauthorized computer equipment because they weren't tested by the canadian equivilent of the fcc.
so it is a valid analogy
except its not if you understand the difference between civil and criminal actions.
The guy in Australia sold copied games and mod chips because instead of tipping off the authorities, sony decided to sue him.. The guy in canada got arrested by the police and undoubtably had to spend a small amount of time in jail awaiting trial and such.
If enough people are arrested for outrageously stupid reasons, public awareness of what is happening will be raised.
How many is enough? Something like 60% of the people in the US prison system are there because of relatively minor drug related offenses.. they still haven't really convinced anyone that the system should be changed.
Yes, but you can't have it both ways.. Either its a physical object that you buy with no strings attached, or its a physical object that is the delivery device for some licensed content. If its just a delivery device for some licensed content, then yes, you should expect a replacement of the content that you have licensed (minus of course the low cost of the delivery device). If its a physical object, you can't expect a cheap replacement, but you can expect sony to not bitch at you everytime you take it apart and modify it, the same way chevy can't bitch if you decide to lower the ass end of your 4x4 a few inches..
35 The applicants, by a late amendment to the pleadings, alleged that the PlayStation games embodied cinematograph films. They relied on the decision of the Full Court in Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd v Sega Enterprises Ltd (1997) 75 FCR 8, for the proposition that the aggregate of visual images generated by the PlayStation games constituted a "cinematograph film" within the definition in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act and were thus the subject of copyright under Part IV of the Act. This was because the aggregate of visual images was "embodied" in the computer program stored on the CD-ROM. It was no objection to this conclusion that the images appearing on the screen were dependent on player input; nor that the computer program could also be the subject of copyright by virtue of Part III of the Copyright Act. The applicants were the persons who did all things necessary for the production of the first copy of the Films and thus copyright subsisted in them: Copyright Act, ss 22(4), 90. In any event, since the name of Sony Europe appeared on each copy of the Films, it was presumed to be the maker of the Films: Copyright Act, s 131.
It seems retarded to try and make every claim under the sun.. they probably would have been better off to make a somewhat valid claim and stick with it.. throwing in at the last minute that games are also movies, isn't really smart.. esp. considering the judge saw right through it.
Are you a lawyer? I'm almost 100% certain your point 3 is totally wrong. In most area's certain purchases (in this area, I believe anything over $500) have to be in writing. Sure if you had 100000 cash and wanted to buy a house, i doubt anyone would argue with you, but still legally it has to be in writing..
If you walk into a store and pick up a box and buy it, its yours. Thats just how it is, no amount of legalese inside the box can prohibit you from doing anything with it. If perhaps the seller has you sign a contract before selling you the item, then you are bound to it, but if they just sell you a box with something in it no questions asked, the same way you buy peanut butter and the grocery store, you aren't held to anything. You can take it home and use it as its intended or use it to pound nails or use it to collect rain water if you want.
If I buy a car and put a cd player in it that it didn't ship with and sell it my friend down the street, ford can't do dick about it. The same is true if I buy a playstation and put some extra chips in an sell it. It might piss sony off, but the worst its done is void the warranty. Where you can get in trouble with the govt by mass selling these things installed is that the device hasn't been fcc tested or whatever the relevant canadian authority is, so you are selling unapproved computer hardware, which is what a couple of the guys charges were. Its not unapproved because sony isn't happy, its unapproved because it hasn't been tested to ensure that it doesn't shoot out radiation or interfere with tv signals and such.
WRONG: You buy a PS2 from a local dealer, who charges you a fat fee to install a mod chip in your new PS2 (He profits from this activity).
How is that wrong, assuming you knew you were buying the playstation as is and used, not new from sony? Who cares if he profits because he can solder better than i can? There is nothing wrong with modding a playstation. He was arrested for violating copyright law.
No where in the constitution does it say that the public is responsible for helping business's with flawed business models make money.. if it did, we'd be stuck supporting cuecat and iopener and all kinds of other stupid businesses which though a loss leader for something no one would use is a good idea.
Check the manual, which is where the person I know who owns it claims to have seen it. It's also on the SONY web site, for what that's worth.
The great part is that neither of those are worth anything legally speaking.. when you buy a piece of hardware you buy it. period. Doctrine of first sale if nothing else establishes that.. not to mention that for you to agree to some kind of end user hardware license you'd have to know about it and see it in writing before you purchased the device and most likely would have to sign something since the cost of a psx is relatively high.
don't lie.
still, its stupid to mod something as redundant thats not redundant.. it would be better modded as a troll or something else.. redundant implies that its been posted here already or is very similar to something thats been posted already.. but yeh.. this story sucks..
earth to moderators, it can't be redundant if its the only post with that content..
unless you install quicktime for windows, which decides that it can decode pngs when it actually can't.
Why is there a disproportionate amount of appendicitis cases in Antartica? Does anyone know?
I've read the book (albeit several years ago) and I don't get it so perhaps its not as obvious as one would think.
MS has constantly explained what .net is... if you aren't a software developer, you probably don't understand, but still the definition is there..
Not to flame, but I've never understood the appeal of shell accounts if you already have your own Darwin shell prompt.
hah.. like the old saying goes.. if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand..
Apple Systems sell themselves
how so?
: Why is Apple charging for iTools?
Providing email and storage solutions for millions of customers comes at a considerable cost. In addition, using the Internet today requires more storage space, better ways to share, and new ways to protect your important files. To continue providing iTools services as well as a new set of must-haves for computing on the Internet, Apple is charging an annual fee.
Bought individually, comparable products would cost you an estimated $250 If you're stupid:
Anti-virus: $50 If you're stupid
Backup: $40 If you're stupid
100MB of online storage: $60 If you're stupid
15MB of email storage, forwarding and POP/IMAP access: $40+ If you're stupid
Home page creation and hosting: $60 If you're stupid
Games DON'T affect kids. If PacMan did, we'd all be eating pills and listening to repeditive music...
if you are going to steal a popular sig, at least make sure you have it correct, and not just a poor paraphasing of it..
otherwise you'll be reading about them next week when some evil 4 letter acronym is sueing the pants off of them.