If you think any laptop will handle this, remember that he's going to be on the water 24/7, including rainstorms. If you think your laptop can handle that well, take it into your bathroom, open it and fire it up, then take a nice, long, hot shower. Repeat this every day. If your machine takes more than four days of this without getting condensation behind the screen and developing crudly goo on all of the internals, let us know what brand it is.
> . Surely thou canst piss off all thy friends with an ancient dialect, at the very least?
Verily, thou canst not do even such a thing. For by sooth, thou wouldst say, werest thou worthy of thine attitude, thus:
Verily,
thine comments strike deep into my (or mine own) soul. If thou art unable to play the part of the paladin with a joyful heart, then thine effort is short of that deserving knightly honour. Surely canst thou piss off all thine friends with an ancient dialect, at the very least?
Okay, I confess that it's a hyperextended example, but do I really have to provide evidence that a signature is not required to legalize a contract? To take the same example without overreaching at all, drive up to a full service station, and ask the attendant to fill the tank. When he's done, can you say, "since I didn't sign any contract for the sale of the gas, I don't have to pay" to him? You can say that that's not the same as buying your Playstation, but it's not different in a legal sense. Most universities have statements published that state that staff are not allowed to enter into agreements, including verbal contracts on behalf of the university without prior consent of the university board, which means they've accepted the legality and enforceability of unsigned contracts.
The point of this whole discussion is that you assert that the terms of sale for your Playstation are legally unenforceable, but you make that assertion without any legal backing or citation. Since lawcrawler.findlaw.com gets many hits on cases where ToS agreements are indeed successfully enforced, the burden falls to you to prove why you think that they're not valid. Present some citations or cases or anything that would back up your assertion. If it's so obvious, it should be relatively easy to prove through case precedent, no?
> If you don't sign something (hell, the playstation doesn't even have a "click here to agree"), you can't be bound to it.
Try this logic out by going to a self-service, pay at the pump gas station. Use your card to gas up, and note that you need not agree to anything at all (not even a "push this button to agree") to use your credit card. Now, since you didn't sign anything, you're not bound by the agreement to pay the bill! Isn't that great? Go out and spend that money on a drink for figuring out such a great way around contract law! Just remember to put a little away to bail yourself out.
You agreed to be bound when you used the device. If it had a restriction against using it from 2 AM to 5 AM, you'd be breaking the contract by doing so. Now, that particular restriction would get a real thrashing in court, but your vaunted freedom from the "don't modify" part of it has already been shot down in court, so you're treading on very thin ice, in a legal sense, to say that it's unenforceable. Others have said the same, and got their proverbial heads handed to them (along with monetary judgements against them) in the real world.
> 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.
Cite the statute if it's there, but don't guess. There is no such statute where I live.
> 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..
Again, if you can prove this, do so with citation. The sale of real estate has to be registered in my state, but the contract of sale itself can be verbal as long as the transfer of deed is filed correctly.
> 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.
For the third time, citations, please. If you can't show me where the terms-of-use agreement is overridden by some other law, then you're guessing, and guessing wrong. Terms of use have been successfully defended in court, both in the U.S. and in Canada, and this case itself demonstrates the enforceability of that fact. Prove otherwise, or I'll have to say you're wrong.
> 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.
But I've never bought a grocery store like that... 8) Anyway, you're mistaken, because there is a contract. There's no physical signature, but if you think that's a requirement for a transaction or contract, buy gas at a pay-at-the-pump station, then refuse to pay the bill, and see how long it takes the court order to show up. Your use of the device is your agreement.
> 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.
Irrelevant comment. You're talking about intentional misuse, and I'm talking about modifying the device. The first is not mentioned in the terms of use, and the second is specifically forbidden.
> 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.
That's because Ford didn't make you agree to any terms of use involving aftermarket CD players when you bought the car (so you can modify it if you like) and there are no legal restrictions on reselling the car.
> 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.
Incorrect, because Sony did make you agree to terms of use involving aftermarket chipsets. You can say as many times as you like that Sony has no right to enforce (or even establish) such a contract, but you'll continue to be wrong.
> 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.
You're quite right that FCC (I think it's Industry Canada that has jurisdiction for this up there) regulations can get you in legal trouble, but that's in addition to the trouble you're buying for breach of contract. The case against the fellow in Canada was pressed on "unapproved hardware" grounds because the government can't charge someone directly with breach of contract unless they're a participant. Sony would have to press that case.
Here's a Civics lesson: the two ways to change a law are to change it governmentally (lobby and boycott and get petitions and vote and such) or break it in a big, public way to draw attention to yourself (and, in the process, the bad law).
What you're doing is neither of those things. You're protesting a law by pretending that it doesn't exist (or doesn't matter), which is foolish, childish, and prone to prosecution.
Blow off all you want about how the law doesn't matter, but keep your Civics rants to yourself until you grow up. Good citizens fight unjust laws, but they do it properly.
> So? It doesn't matter what the manual or the website says. What matters is what is legally enforcable, and a "please don't do this" in a manual is not.
What exactly makes you say that their request (which isn't actually a request but a term of use) isn't legally enforceable? Credit card companies do it constantly, and every case brought against them for it to date has been dismissed or lost. There have been few cases where shrinkwrap terms of use have been tested in court, but despite what you hear on Slashdot, that doesn't mean that every presale terms-of-use contract is invalid. In fact, most of them are considered valid from a legal standpoint, and this case sets precedent (for Canadians) that these contracts are very much enforceable.
1.) Doctrine of First Sale doesn't directly apply to this case. That rule says that SONY can't forbid you to put the whole thing back in the box and sell it to someone else. Modifying it is not covered by DFS.
2.) It's legal to establish rules of use after sale as long as those rules are set before sale (they put the card in the box and don't regularly replace it with a new one) and you are allowed to withdraw (in this case, to return the device for a refund).
3.) The cost of the device is immaterial to the method of contract. You can enter into a verbal contract to buy a house. It's not a good idea, but it's perfectly legal. In this case, the terms of use state that you must agree (among other things) not to modify it, and your use of the device constitutes your acceptance of the terms. If you don't agree, you're supposed to opt out of the agreement, which means take it back to the store and get your money back. Since you're (presumably) using your Playstation, you've agreed to the terms, legally. Whether these terms are enforceable remains to be seen, but at least in Canada, this case points towards the legality of this contract, and in the U.S., credit card companies have successfully used this contract tactic so it's certainly likely that a court will accept it.
First off, well spoken. You answered in a very organized and cool fashion. That's unusual here, when stuff like this comes up. That said, there are a few points that I want to respond to:
> Personally, I find such licensing schemes to be morally reprehensible.
As do I. Would that the courts agreed.
> In the U.S., the right to reverse engineer is legally sanctioned and assured.
Chipping a P/S2 is not reverse engineering, it's modifying. Take note that the law addresses these things separately (that's why the two terms are separated in most EULAs).
> The property management company broke the law by failing to repair air conditioning in the apartment in a timely fashion (AC is considered an essential service in Arizona by law), and although they had a clause in the lease agreement that "excused" the company from liability if they were unable to perform a repair in a timely fashion, the law took precedence over the contract, and I
was vindicated.
This isn't exactly the same, since (despite what many of my friends say) the P/S2 isn't usually considered an "essential service". Also, there are no laws currently in place that specifically allow hardware modifications to the P/S2, so it's not the same as signing a contract that takes away rights explicitly granted, which is what happened with your lease.
> If I buy a piece of hardware in the United States, I can do whatever I want to it...
Well, here's where it turns grey. It's easy to say that, but not so easy to defend it in court. For example, this guy got fined for selling the mod chips themselves and installing them in customers' machines. In this case, he didn't buy the hardware, so where does the line fall? If you modify your own machine, it's fairly easy to claim fair use. This becomes much harder when people are paying you to break contract for them.
> All the more reason for me to enjoy being a U.S. citizen (until such time as the laws here are modified by corporate interests).
They're gonna pull your Slashdot account. Have you not heard of the DMCA? It applies to hardware as well as software.
> I bought physical property, which i may use however i like. I don't really care if they include a paper that says i can't do this or that with it.
I hate to be blunt, but the law doesn't concern itself with whether you care about that piece of paper, only whether it exists. You'll end up with your "Bull" in court, as proven by this guy.
Because you have to modify the machine to do it. Go figure why that's different from modifying the machine to make backups. And yes, it sucks. If you're American, thank you congress for taking such good care of your multinationals for you.
> If I own it I have a right to copy it, stomp on it, pee on it, sell it, modify it. It's mine, I own it, I do what I want with it. (emphasis mine)
You specifically gave up the right to modify it when you bought it. The terms of use agreement stipulates that you can't modify it, and by using the P/S2, you legally accepted those terms of use. Don't like it? Don't buy it. If enough people take this route, the terms will change. Until they do, however, you're legally (and morally, since violation of a contract is dishonesty in moral nomenclature) wrong to alter it.
...but I'll say it again. Let's say I have a brick, and I tell you, "I'll sell you this brick, but only if you promise not to saw it in half." You agree, and I sell you the brick. Now, you own the brick, and you saw it in half. Since you gave your word not to do something, then did it, you have committed an act of dishonesty, which is morally unsupportable.
When you bought your P/S2, you agreed not to modify it (yes, legally you did, by using it). If you modify it, you're breaking that agreement. That is, by virtually everyone's definition, morally questionable.
When you bought your car, you most likely did not agree to a "terms of use" contract, like you do when you buy a P/S2 (for a closer comparison, try opening the hood and putting your mods on a car you've leased, rather than bought, from the dealership). If you had, then modified the car in violation of that contract, you'd be breaking the law. If you think the terms of use for P/S2 are too restrictive, then don't buy one, and tell SONY why you didn't. That is, unfortunately, the only legal path you can take.
...that held your P/S2. The terms of use for the device say that you're not allowed to modify it, and if you don't agree to the terms of use (including this one) you should return it for a refund. That's called a "presale contract" in legal terms, and is quite sufficient to prove you broke the law (contract law, in this case). Your only legal recourse is to buy a Japanese P/S2 that'll play the games, or return your P/S2 to the store.
> Their ability to DICTATE to you ends as soon as you give them your money.
Not necessarily. See below.
> For any other sort of property, this is painfully obvious. Only for "artificial" property are restrictions such as these considered anything but absurd megalomaniacal fantasy.
Not true. Real estate is a perfect example. Let's say you're looking to buy a house. You find a nice one, and you sit down with the seller, who shows you the bylaws of the neighborhood. One of those bylaws is that you're not allowed to put a fence up in front of the house. Now, let's say you buy the house, move in, and put up a stockade in front of the house. What happens next? You can guess easily. This illustrates how a presale contract can affect your use of your own property after sale. In the case of the P/S2. the purchase agreement stipulates that you are not allowed to modify it. If you don't like that stipulation, the seller (SONY, in this case) has every right to tell you you can't buy a P/S2. Since you bought it, you (in a legal sense) agreed to be bound by that stipulation. If you then go home, shuck the case and chip it, you've violated that presale contract, and so you're liable for legal trouble. It's that simple. The answer to this, is, of course, not to buy the P/S2, and if enough people don't the profit hit will get them to rethink the contract. But that's the only legal recourse.
Well, if you went into a Ford dealership, and they told you up front, "you can only have Ford owners for passengers", then you agreed, bought the Ford, and took your Nissan-driving mother out for a spin, you'd be violating the contract. That's what "...dictate the terms under which his product is offered" means. You could certainly opt not to buy a Ford, but if you agreed at the time of purchase, you'd be in legal hot water if you violated that agreement after the sale. In this case, SONY offers P/S2 systems to Americans on the stipulation that (A) it only plays games authorized to play on American P/S2s, and (B) you promise not to fuck with the innards. If you don't agree with those terms, you should buy a Gamecube. If you do, you give up the right to do what you want with it (legally, at least) when you hook it up. Perhaps it sucks, but that's the way the purchase agreement works. If you don't like it, tell them that with your dollars.
Based on your description, you have a case for defense in fair use. If you chip your P/S2, make backups only of your own games, and never rent, sell or distribute those backups (or the originals while you use the backups), you're within the bounds of fair use. If you want to play imports, unfortunately you can't since that's not fair use in the legal sense, and you'd have to buy an imported P/S2 to do that.
> A mod chip is a device that lets you run unsigned code on a game console. How does putting an interop chip in your PS1, writing a program on your PC, compiling it with GCC, burning it to a CD, and putting it in the PS1's drive violate Sony's copyright?
It doesn't. The copyright infringement was for selling pirate copies of games. The mod chip charges stem from these parts:
When you get a P/S 1 (or 2) you agree (like it or not) not to reverse engineer or modify the device, and since it's a proprietary machine they can say that. When you put in the interop chip, you've violated their license agreement, and so you're no longer authorized to use the device. They will not normally enforce this against a single user, so people mod their systems all the time and SONY says nothing. However, this guy is selling the mod chips and the mod itself (he charged for the installation). That's the same offense, but since it's on a grander scale, SONY is more inclined to nail him for it.
The reason is, of course, money. The mod chip allows users to play pirate games, but it also allows users to play games for which SONY has received no licensing fees. Imagine if FF9 had been written and published for P/S2, but SONY didn't get their piece of every disk's price to put their seal of approval on it. They're doing this to defend their revenue stream for the games.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think any laptop will handle this, remember that he's going to be on the water 24/7, including rainstorms. If you think your laptop can handle that well, take it into your bathroom, open it and fire it up, then take a nice, long, hot shower. Repeat this every day. If your machine takes more than four days of this without getting condensation behind the screen and developing crudly goo on all of the internals, let us know what brand it is.
Virg
Nay, I say, for I am unable to train such a recalcitrant beast! but still, well and verily hath I schooled his arse.
Virg
...that there are those who would pay to see him hung, I think you mean "hanged, drawn and quartered" (at least, I hope you mean that).
Virg
Verily, thou canst not do even such a thing. For by sooth, thou wouldst say, werest thou worthy of thine attitude, thus: Virg
Okay, I confess that it's a hyperextended example, but do I really have to provide evidence that a signature is not required to legalize a contract? To take the same example without overreaching at all, drive up to a full service station, and ask the attendant to fill the tank. When he's done, can you say, "since I didn't sign any contract for the sale of the gas, I don't have to pay" to him? You can say that that's not the same as buying your Playstation, but it's not different in a legal sense. Most universities have statements published that state that staff are not allowed to enter into agreements, including verbal contracts on behalf of the university without prior consent of the university board, which means they've accepted the legality and enforceability of unsigned contracts.
The point of this whole discussion is that you assert that the terms of sale for your Playstation are legally unenforceable, but you make that assertion without any legal backing or citation. Since lawcrawler.findlaw.com gets many hits on cases where ToS agreements are indeed successfully enforced, the burden falls to you to prove why you think that they're not valid. Present some citations or cases or anything that would back up your assertion. If it's so obvious, it should be relatively easy to prove through case precedent, no?
Virg
> If you don't sign something (hell, the playstation doesn't even have a "click here to agree"), you can't be bound to it.
Try this logic out by going to a self-service, pay at the pump gas station. Use your card to gas up, and note that you need not agree to anything at all (not even a "push this button to agree") to use your credit card. Now, since you didn't sign anything, you're not bound by the agreement to pay the bill! Isn't that great? Go out and spend that money on a drink for figuring out such a great way around contract law! Just remember to put a little away to bail yourself out.
You agreed to be bound when you used the device. If it had a restriction against using it from 2 AM to 5 AM, you'd be breaking the contract by doing so. Now, that particular restriction would get a real thrashing in court, but your vaunted freedom from the "don't modify" part of it has already been shot down in court, so you're treading on very thin ice, in a legal sense, to say that it's unenforceable. Others have said the same, and got their proverbial heads handed to them (along with monetary judgements against them) in the real world.
Virg
> 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.
Cite the statute if it's there, but don't guess. There is no such statute where I live.
> 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..
Again, if you can prove this, do so with citation. The sale of real estate has to be registered in my state, but the contract of sale itself can be verbal as long as the transfer of deed is filed correctly.
> 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.
For the third time, citations, please. If you can't show me where the terms-of-use agreement is overridden by some other law, then you're guessing, and guessing wrong. Terms of use have been successfully defended in court, both in the U.S. and in Canada, and this case itself demonstrates the enforceability of that fact. Prove otherwise, or I'll have to say you're wrong.
> 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.
But I've never bought a grocery store like that... 8) Anyway, you're mistaken, because there is a contract. There's no physical signature, but if you think that's a requirement for a transaction or contract, buy gas at a pay-at-the-pump station, then refuse to pay the bill, and see how long it takes the court order to show up. Your use of the device is your agreement.
> 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.
Irrelevant comment. You're talking about intentional misuse, and I'm talking about modifying the device. The first is not mentioned in the terms of use, and the second is specifically forbidden.
> 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.
That's because Ford didn't make you agree to any terms of use involving aftermarket CD players when you bought the car (so you can modify it if you like) and there are no legal restrictions on reselling the car.
> 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.
Incorrect, because Sony did make you agree to terms of use involving aftermarket chipsets. You can say as many times as you like that Sony has no right to enforce (or even establish) such a contract, but you'll continue to be wrong.
> 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.
You're quite right that FCC (I think it's Industry Canada that has jurisdiction for this up there) regulations can get you in legal trouble, but that's in addition to the trouble you're buying for breach of contract. The case against the fellow in Canada was pressed on "unapproved hardware" grounds because the government can't charge someone directly with breach of contract unless they're a participant. Sony would have to press that case.
Virg
Here's a Civics lesson: the two ways to change a law are to change it governmentally (lobby and boycott and get petitions and vote and such) or break it in a big, public way to draw attention to yourself (and, in the process, the bad law).
What you're doing is neither of those things. You're protesting a law by pretending that it doesn't exist (or doesn't matter), which is foolish, childish, and prone to prosecution.
Blow off all you want about how the law doesn't matter, but keep your Civics rants to yourself until you grow up. Good citizens fight unjust laws, but they do it properly.
Virg
> So? It doesn't matter what the manual or the website says. What matters is what is legally enforcable, and a "please don't do this" in a manual is not.
What exactly makes you say that their request (which isn't actually a request but a term of use) isn't legally enforceable? Credit card companies do it constantly, and every case brought against them for it to date has been dismissed or lost. There have been few cases where shrinkwrap terms of use have been tested in court, but despite what you hear on Slashdot, that doesn't mean that every presale terms-of-use contract is invalid. In fact, most of them are considered valid from a legal standpoint, and this case sets precedent (for Canadians) that these contracts are very much enforceable.
Virg
Several points:
1.) Doctrine of First Sale doesn't directly apply to this case. That rule says that SONY can't forbid you to put the whole thing back in the box and sell it to someone else. Modifying it is not covered by DFS.
2.) It's legal to establish rules of use after sale as long as those rules are set before sale (they put the card in the box and don't regularly replace it with a new one) and you are allowed to withdraw (in this case, to return the device for a refund).
3.) The cost of the device is immaterial to the method of contract. You can enter into a verbal contract to buy a house. It's not a good idea, but it's perfectly legal. In this case, the terms of use state that you must agree (among other things) not to modify it, and your use of the device constitutes your acceptance of the terms. If you don't agree, you're supposed to opt out of the agreement, which means take it back to the store and get your money back. Since you're (presumably) using your Playstation, you've agreed to the terms, legally. Whether these terms are enforceable remains to be seen, but at least in Canada, this case points towards the legality of this contract, and in the U.S., credit card companies have successfully used this contract tactic so it's certainly likely that a court will accept it.
Virg
First off, well spoken. You answered in a very organized and cool fashion. That's unusual here, when stuff like this comes up. That said, there are a few points that I want to respond to:
> Personally, I find such licensing schemes to be morally reprehensible.
As do I. Would that the courts agreed.
> In the U.S., the right to reverse engineer is legally sanctioned and assured.
Chipping a P/S2 is not reverse engineering, it's modifying. Take note that the law addresses these things separately (that's why the two terms are separated in most EULAs).
> The property management company broke the law by failing to repair air conditioning in the apartment in a timely fashion (AC is considered an essential service in Arizona by law), and although they had a clause in the lease agreement that "excused" the company from liability if they were unable to perform a repair in a timely fashion, the law took precedence over the contract, and I was vindicated.
This isn't exactly the same, since (despite what many of my friends say) the P/S2 isn't usually considered an "essential service". Also, there are no laws currently in place that specifically allow hardware modifications to the P/S2, so it's not the same as signing a contract that takes away rights explicitly granted, which is what happened with your lease.
> If I buy a piece of hardware in the United States, I can do whatever I want to it...
Well, here's where it turns grey. It's easy to say that, but not so easy to defend it in court. For example, this guy got fined for selling the mod chips themselves and installing them in customers' machines. In this case, he didn't buy the hardware, so where does the line fall? If you modify your own machine, it's fairly easy to claim fair use. This becomes much harder when people are paying you to break contract for them.
> All the more reason for me to enjoy being a U.S. citizen (until such time as the laws here are modified by corporate interests).
They're gonna pull your Slashdot account. Have you not heard of the DMCA? It applies to hardware as well as software.
Virg
> I bought physical property, which i may use however i like. I don't really care if they include a paper that says i can't do this or that with it.
I hate to be blunt, but the law doesn't concern itself with whether you care about that piece of paper, only whether it exists. You'll end up with your "Bull" in court, as proven by this guy.
Virg
It's inside, but it states that you can return it for a refund if you don't like it. Good luck trying, but that's what it says.
Virg
> Why is that not fair use?
Because you have to modify the machine to do it. Go figure why that's different from modifying the machine to make backups. And yes, it sucks. If you're American, thank you congress for taking such good care of your multinationals for you.
Virg
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.
Second, don't be jiggedy. I didn't say PS/2 (the IBM thing). I said P/S2, which, while perhaps unorthodox, is not inaccurate. No, really. 8)
Virg
> Selling a part that can be used to modify a PS/2 and actually modifying it are two very different things.
They are, but since he was doing both, I can't see why that matters here.
P/S2, by the way. PS/2 is an IBM PC. 8)
Virg
He probably won't get anally raped on probation.
RTFA.
Virg
> If I own it I have a right to copy it, stomp on it, pee on it, sell it, modify it. It's mine, I own it, I do what I want with it. (emphasis mine)
You specifically gave up the right to modify it when you bought it. The terms of use agreement stipulates that you can't modify it, and by using the P/S2, you legally accepted those terms of use. Don't like it? Don't buy it. If enough people take this route, the terms will change. Until they do, however, you're legally (and morally, since violation of a contract is dishonesty in moral nomenclature) wrong to alter it.
Of course it sucks. But it's not bullshit.
Virg
...but I'll say it again. Let's say I have a brick, and I tell you, "I'll sell you this brick, but only if you promise not to saw it in half." You agree, and I sell you the brick. Now, you own the brick, and you saw it in half. Since you gave your word not to do something, then did it, you have committed an act of dishonesty, which is morally unsupportable.
When you bought your P/S2, you agreed not to modify it (yes, legally you did, by using it). If you modify it, you're breaking that agreement. That is, by virtually everyone's definition, morally questionable.
Virg
When you bought your car, you most likely did not agree to a "terms of use" contract, like you do when you buy a P/S2 (for a closer comparison, try opening the hood and putting your mods on a car you've leased, rather than bought, from the dealership). If you had, then modified the car in violation of that contract, you'd be breaking the law. If you think the terms of use for P/S2 are too restrictive, then don't buy one, and tell SONY why you didn't. That is, unfortunately, the only legal path you can take.
Virg
...that held your P/S2. The terms of use for the device say that you're not allowed to modify it, and if you don't agree to the terms of use (including this one) you should return it for a refund. That's called a "presale contract" in legal terms, and is quite sufficient to prove you broke the law (contract law, in this case). Your only legal recourse is to buy a Japanese P/S2 that'll play the games, or return your P/S2 to the store.
Sorry. I agree that it sucks, but that's the law.
Virg
> Their ability to DICTATE to you ends as soon as you give them your money.
Not necessarily. See below.
> For any other sort of property, this is painfully obvious. Only for "artificial" property are restrictions such as these considered anything but absurd megalomaniacal fantasy.
Not true. Real estate is a perfect example. Let's say you're looking to buy a house. You find a nice one, and you sit down with the seller, who shows you the bylaws of the neighborhood. One of those bylaws is that you're not allowed to put a fence up in front of the house. Now, let's say you buy the house, move in, and put up a stockade in front of the house. What happens next? You can guess easily. This illustrates how a presale contract can affect your use of your own property after sale. In the case of the P/S2. the purchase agreement stipulates that you are not allowed to modify it. If you don't like that stipulation, the seller (SONY, in this case) has every right to tell you you can't buy a P/S2. Since you bought it, you (in a legal sense) agreed to be bound by that stipulation. If you then go home, shuck the case and chip it, you've violated that presale contract, and so you're liable for legal trouble. It's that simple. The answer to this, is, of course, not to buy the P/S2, and if enough people don't the profit hit will get them to rethink the contract. But that's the only legal recourse.
Virg
Well, if you went into a Ford dealership, and they told you up front, "you can only have Ford owners for passengers", then you agreed, bought the Ford, and took your Nissan-driving mother out for a spin, you'd be violating the contract. That's what "...dictate the terms under which his product is offered" means. You could certainly opt not to buy a Ford, but if you agreed at the time of purchase, you'd be in legal hot water if you violated that agreement after the sale. In this case, SONY offers P/S2 systems to Americans on the stipulation that (A) it only plays games authorized to play on American P/S2s, and (B) you promise not to fuck with the innards. If you don't agree with those terms, you should buy a Gamecube. If you do, you give up the right to do what you want with it (legally, at least) when you hook it up. Perhaps it sucks, but that's the way the purchase agreement works. If you don't like it, tell them that with your dollars.
Virg
Based on your description, you have a case for defense in fair use. If you chip your P/S2, make backups only of your own games, and never rent, sell or distribute those backups (or the originals while you use the backups), you're within the bounds of fair use. If you want to play imports, unfortunately you can't since that's not fair use in the legal sense, and you'd have to buy an imported P/S2 to do that.
Virg
> A mod chip is a device that lets you run unsigned code on a game console. How does putting an interop chip in your PS1, writing a program on your PC, compiling it with GCC, burning it to a CD, and putting it in the PS1's drive violate Sony's copyright?
It doesn't. The copyright infringement was for selling pirate copies of games. The mod chip charges stem from these parts:
When you get a P/S 1 (or 2) you agree (like it or not) not to reverse engineer or modify the device, and since it's a proprietary machine they can say that. When you put in the interop chip, you've violated their license agreement, and so you're no longer authorized to use the device. They will not normally enforce this against a single user, so people mod their systems all the time and SONY says nothing. However, this guy is selling the mod chips and the mod itself (he charged for the installation). That's the same offense, but since it's on a grander scale, SONY is more inclined to nail him for it.
The reason is, of course, money. The mod chip allows users to play pirate games, but it also allows users to play games for which SONY has received no licensing fees. Imagine if FF9 had been written and published for P/S2, but SONY didn't get their piece of every disk's price to put their seal of approval on it. They're doing this to defend their revenue stream for the games.
Virg