Slashdot Log In
Sony Crushes UK PS2 Mod Chip Developers
Posted by
Hemos
on Thu Jan 24, 2002 09:13 AM
from the got-their-day-in-court dept.
from the got-their-day-in-court dept.
SukebePanda! writes "UK mod chip developer Channel
Techonology finally had their day in court with Sony, and lost big time. This judgement could have far reaching implications, with the judge implying that even playing original imports was illegal. This
also wipes out any chances of seeing home brewed software on the Playstation 2 anytime soon, as well. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Sony Crushes UK PS2 Mod Chip Developers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 506 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Sweet Day for X-Box (Score:4, Insightful)
That highly spread misconception really annoys me. First off, it's not ENTIRELY true.
Everyone likes to think game consoles manufacturers make ALL of their money on software sales, and ALWAYS take a loss on the system. It quite simply isn't all there is to it.
Normally when a system debutes all of the real profit comes from software sales, this is true. The system still "Costs" more than it sells for because the R&D revenue hasn't been made back. The first two years of console sales tend to make that back. After that, continued sales tend to lean more and more towards the profit side, simply because the costs of manufacturing fluctuates and most companies that make a whole lot of something are constantly trying to cut costs in one form or another.
So while software sales ARE the most important factor in the end, the company STILL generates a lot of it's revenue from hardware sales as well because when selling systems you also get the bonus of selling controllers and accessories which have very high profit margins.
If console manufacturers didn't make profit on the consoles, there wouldn't be any console manufacturers. They would ALL be concentrating on software like Sega did.
It took two consecutive lost battles (32x and Saturn) to weaken Sega enough that they were in a state to give up so quickly on the Dreamcast. Had they been able to endure another year, they could've easily been profitable while making consoles. However, with the Gamecube and XBox adding to the Playstation 2 threat, Sega didn't have much hope.
But don't think it's because there's no money in hardware, that simply isn't true. There's PLENTY of money in hardware, even Nintendo claims they never take a loss on hardware sales (though that's hard to believe considering the Gamecube only costs $199). I think it simply stands true that while there is money in hardware, there is MORE money in software, and that will probably always be the case.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free trade. (Score:5, Informative)
If you can partitian a market, to the level of world regions, countries, states, cities, or even individuals, then you can always charge more.
These artificial price distinctions allow 'value based pricing', where the price paid for a good is the same as its percieved value. As there is (at least some) free trade, producers of goods cannot do that. They must sell at a uniform price, for otherwise, people will just ship the goods from where they are cheap to where they are artificially expensive. This makes economic sense, because it insures that goods will be sold closer to their marginal costs of production.
Thats the real reason for region coding, to artificially partitian the world market so-as to sell goods for inflated prices.
Its also the reason that manufactures don't liked used goods. Because used goods also threaten those artificially inflated prices. Because 'the new economy is different', they've managed to shut down used software.
Every mod chip that allows goods to cross these partitians is an attack on their artificially inflated prices. And thus they at least wish for that to be illegal.
17 USC 117 keeps this from happening in USA (Score:5, Informative)
The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony. Basically, this 'controversial' statement made it illegal to play games purchased from abroad.
Nice try, but unlike United Kingdom copyright law, United States copyright law would consider this a fair use of the copyrighted work. According to 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu]:
This paragraph was passed specifically to reject copyright owners' "Copying the program into RAM is infringing; therefore, EULAs are binding" argument.
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, modding my PS2 to play CD-R games is a bit of a different matter. Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony still gets their money from the original software sale
Sony of Japan Inc does. Sony of America Inc doesn't.
Most of the games are coming out on DVDs these days, anyways, so I don't know how big of an impact this would have.
Stripping away the movies helps shrink most games down to under 700 MB.
Sony vs. Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
A) Not availible at all in America
B) It won't be availible in America for ages, but you're willing to pay for the privilidge of playing it early.
C) You happened to *be* in Japan when buying it (I got a bunch of DVDs I can't play on any Region 1 DVD player if I decide to go a year to America.
D) The local version is a cripple (As was/is often the case with DVDs, with bad format (two sides), no extras etc.)
E) Artifical pricing - actually very rare case to make up for shipping and customs, trouble with returns/replacements and so on.
A) - No loss whatsoever
B) - They could sell it to you for a premium, they just don't.
C) - Pisses off those it concerns, for no return, I still won't buy them twice.
D) - Pure incompetence, we need competitive protection from our other divisions.
E) - Wow they might actually lose some money.
Kjella
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:5, Insightful)
So? It's NOT the business of the government or of me to guarantee any particular business a profit, or indeed that it stay in business. The producer of the original game gets the money from the sale of their product.
Just because Sony of America would rather you give your money to them rather than to Sony of Japan rates a big "Waah-fucking-Waaah!" in my book.
I am so sick of these dipshit corporations and anti-competitive trusts like the RIAA and MPAA who have so *little* confidence in their own products that they twist the legal system to try and force consumers to pay them "entertainment taxes". What they are doing is screaming at the top of their lungs via their actions that "OUR PRODUCTS REALLY SUCK AND WE KNOW YOU WOULDN'T BUY THEM OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL BECAUSE THEY ARE SO BAD!"
Why else are they so afraid of honest competition?
Your argument is with the government, not Sony. (Score:4, Insightful)
But it IS the business of government to see that, when a person or organization has played by the government's rules and has something of value, they do not lose that value to someone who has NOT played by the government's rules.
You may have an argument with the rules - whether they're proper, or whether they're consistent with the rest of the rules - especially those that override lower-level rules. But that argument is not with Sony, but with the government: With the legislature (for constructing the obnoxious rule), or with the courts (for not resolving the inconsistency with other rules of the same or higher precedence).
Re:Sony of Japan vs. Sony of America (Score:4, Insightful)
> Sony of Japan Inc does. Sony of America Inc doesn't.
If Sony of America Inc can't compete in terms of price and
availability with Sony of Japan Inc, then they SHOULDN'T be
getting any money. The market segmentation that digital content
providers have put into place through region codes is quite
illegal, at least in the U.S. It's just done in a way that
confuses most judges to the point that it can be dismissed with
a waving of hands by a lawyer in an expensive suit.
DVDs and the ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing I'm wondering about it copying data to memory can be considered "illegal copying". If this is the case for imported games, I do not see how this would make it "not illegal" (for lack of a better phrase) to load PS2 games of your home region (as it is still copying). As "copying" is an integral function of all consoles, I'm wondering what unexpected side-effects there will be. I think the whole thing is a minefield, and the sooner we get a knowledgable expert posting here the better. The whole thing about licensing only for a certain region bothers me - I really can't see why we're not allowed to play import games (or DVDs). OK, its their technology, but still there is "fair use". Hopefully the EU can check into this as well when it's doing its investigation of the legality of DVD regions.
UK courts foul up again (Score:5, Insightful)
Marketing suits have been trying for years to stifle shopping internationally, in case people begin to realise that their countries are being screwed in comparison to others. This case affects games importing (because we aren't allowed to buy what we want say the suits) but DVDs as well (because it would absolutely *crush* the movie sector, say the suits) and anything else the marketing guys want to stifle. It's not like dealing contraband, it's off-the-shelf products.
My worry is that this trend will continue, even though it, in some cases, directly contravenes law. Here in the UK, our car prices are drastically higher than on the continent, and certain car manufacturers make it very difficult to buy your car abroad. This is despite the face the EU trade laws explicitely say otherwise. If companies are flauting the *law*, how exactly can we stop them?
Re:UK courts foul up again (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Justice Jacobs.
I was present in the courtroom (I'm the Martin
mentioned on Channel's website), and the judge
was extremely skeptical of Sony's claims,
as he knew that the technology could be used
to prevent fair uses and the development of
PS2 games by people who couldn't licence Sony's
system.
The judge had a perfect grasp of the implications
of the rulings, and made sure that Sony couldn't
stifle people from talking about the case or
about the chip, and prevented Sony from getting
the bank details of the people who had ordered
the chip.
Do you expect the judge not to apply
the law?
What I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, if I buy a license for a piece of software, I retain the rights use that software for an unlimited amount of time.
Re:What I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
Just recently, my 5yo snapped a PS2 disc trying to take it out of the case. OK, it was his fault, he was a little too eager, and I ate the $50 loss. But that's exactly why we should be allowed to create and use backups.
You can show a kid 500 times how to take it out of the case, and how to pop it in to the machine. But they're kids. Hand/eye coordination isn't fully developed. They're more enthusiastic than they are precise. Discs WILL get scratched. A parent cannot take the disc out and put it in every time, because it limits the growth of the child not to do things on their own.
No, it doesn't bother me that the disc got broken, as a parent you expect things to get broken. I felt bad for my son because he knows he did something wrong. What I was annoyed about was that I did not have a method of backing up PS2 games like I did with PS1 and PC games.
And no, my son doesn't sit around and play games all weekend nor does he watch much TV. Like me he spends most of his time outdoors. Which is why he broke the disc, he just hasn't gotten the hang of taking them out of the case yet.
Just one opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Japanese games and backups (Score:3, Insightful)
In Europe? (Score:3, Interesting)
I could imagine that an american court ruled like this.
Why? Well here in Europe the majority of software/hardware producers go by the good spirit of "If you buy it's yours, if you modify/brake it it's your problem"
What is a PS/2 good for if can't modify it to my needs?
If enough people think like this Sony just cut it's own flesh...
Re:In Europe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart Judge (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like a T-ball setup for a great public outcry and movement to get the politicians off their buts and give back some rights to end users. Or maybe just a great appeal case to go up the judiciary path. The quicker this judge makes his ruling the quicker it gets up the appeal path.
this isn't about (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, illegal copyiers force companies like SONY to take these steps to protect the profits of their company and the artisits that produce games. I am unahppy that this action was necassary, but untill the piracy stops SONY and others will take steps like this to keep it to a minimum.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Realize that PS2 is Sony's Closed Architechture (Score:5, Informative)
Now the first sale doctrine is being eroded in two ways:
1) software is typically "licensed", not sold. If courts continue to find that software, even when distributed shrink wrapped for a one off fee can legally be considered to be licensed and not sold, software makers can put a lot more restrictions on their customers than with an outright sale. For licensed products you are not the owner, you are merely granted certain rights to the product for a specified time period (which may be unlimited) under certain terms. If you'd bought the product outright, you'd only be restricted by law, not by license terms dictated by the owner.
2) Companies are given increasing consessions for using patent, copyright and trade secret laws to make modifications to their products impractical - the first use doctrine will still protect you in many countries against doing modification yourself, but increasingly consessions made by the courts prevents people from providing mods or doing them for profit.
Why should this be right?
Would you tolerate a "license agreement" the next time you buy a car that prevent you from putting in a different car stereo, or that prevents you from opening the hood and doing modifications that haven't been bought from the manufacturer and approved by them?
The car isn't theirs anymore, so why should they have any say on how you use it, as long as you don't violate copyright, trademark or patent law in building exact duplicates for sale?
Yet with software and, increasingly, hardware, we tolerate buying "licenses" instead of buying the product, and being tied down to restrictive agreements that would be null and void or even illegal in most other cases. In many jurisdictions, a product will normally be considered to be sold outright if the license is perpetual and there is only one fixed payment when aquiring the license, and any license agreement can then be found to be invalid - unfortunately, software and computer related hardware seems to be treated as an exception more and more places.
I don't get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
what about PS1? (Score:5, Insightful)
PS1 has the largest installed userbase of any console in the world, besides game boy.
Mod chips for the PS1 cost almost nothing, are widely available, and are installed in many units.
The Yaroze was released in the US by Sony- essentially a PS1SDK.
There are countless emulators for the PS1, allowing you to play burned and/or copied software on your computer
Despite all this, I don't think I've ever seen a homebrew PS1 game, ever. Has anyone else?
RAM (Score:3, Insightful)
The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony.
So its ok to have the imported game, but the act of loading the game into the PS2's RAM is where the actual illeagal copying occurs. So I can make n copys and distribute them to all my friends, but the "real" copying (and infringement) doesn't occur until the disc is copied once more, but this time into the RAM of the PS2. Isn't this just semantics. This doesn't make sense.
More from Gazza: (Score:5, Informative)
Due to recent legal proceedings by Sony towards our sale of the 'M' chip we have decided to remove it, and all Sony related devices from the website.
We were eager to promote this device, which arguably had a legal side (we may still yet have to fight on this, depending on their actions). Our main argument (which is received from reading court actions of something similar), was to be that the 'M' could in fact play imported games, this is a GOOD argument, and although we possibly should have been more restricted in advertising it's other capabilities. The rest of the argument is that because our eastern colleagues do not have access to (and SONY would never give) their patented media-authoring technology, they could not make something that could decipher the media. Therefore, if the original imports played, everything else played... it was just part and parcel of the design. You know, there was even an exerted effort to make sure the Playstation 2 logo remained running on the console when loading games. It was thought this was a 'complimentary feature' and the developers actually wrote code that ensured the logo remained intact, although other modchip developers had blatently completely removed it !
To clarify the statement about the control system above, here's an explanation:
Sony have a system running in the PS2 console that detects when a media is both non-licensed, and also which country it arises from. In the case of their licensed media (territorial lockout, and in the PSX known as the SCEA WIZ Code). It is currently unknown by ourselves as to what this system is called in the PS2. There are some interesting things to look at with this system, because of some factors:
A) Sony do not allow anyone to use this system, and therefore because it is patented, the use of the detection technology is unlawful. In the case of Bleem (emulator software) that won legal standing, it appears that they could not implement region or copy protection control into their software, because Sony did not allow them to use the patented technology. Therefore, Bleem software actually ran copied software and imported games because it had no control system used to stop this. So where is the circumvention (which is exactly what it is in basis) in context ? inside the machine, outside the machine, in the electronic guts of the console, or on the disks themselves ?
Looking closely:
It becomes obvious that the territorial and licensed media information is actually on the game disks themselves (otherwise the console will not be able to recognize the difference between disks), so if a software is allowing the import, and non-licensed versions to run, then the system on the disk MUST have been defeated ?
B) In the case of manufacturing a modchip device to play imported games, the fact that the region / copy control is defeated in the same case, it is not possible to have one without the other. Therefore, similar to the case of Bleem, the technology to control this system is not available, and even if were available, is not possible to use due to patent laws and Sony holding this close to their chest. So end result = same as Bleem, the whole kit and kaboodle must play, because you are 1) not allowed to use the technology, or 2) you use a workaround the patented control, but then lose the ability to define any control parameters.
C) To look a little closer:
Datel & Gameshark produces software that runs on the PS2. When this software runs, it produces a disclaimer of the following: 'this product is not licensed blah blah blah' (cannot remember exactly what !). Anyway, this is unlicensed software running on the console, so how is it done ?
If it is running, then it must have defeated the consoles control system ? (this time within the console), it certainly is not licensed, therefore does it break rules, or simply bend them ?
We know EXACTLY how Datel fools the console, and make it think it's software is a 'legal' media ('legal' as in a technical form, 'illegal' being one that is not allowed). Sony have tried to counter-act the loading of Datel disks on subsequent releases of their console models, but Datel have reverse engineered this and usually within a few weeks have produced a 'compatible' version.
Now look at all that has been written above, and start to analyze what you find:
A) Bleem plays imported and unlicensed software, therefore it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the disks from Sony.
B) Datel & Gameshark disks play on the PS2 console (and are unlicensed), therefore they defeat (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the console from sony.
So, we must now look at the 'M' and take into context with the information given above (we'll call it 'C')
C) Messiah plays licensed and unlicensed software, therefore it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the disks from Sony, OR it defeats (or shall we say 'ignores') the control system implemented within the console from Sony ?
When you start to try to get your brain wrapped around what's written above, it can become completely confusing, but there are grey area's of legal matter that must be answered:
Does the 'M' actually defeat BOTH systems?, and IF NOT, does it then become any more illegal (or legal) than those products stated above ?
THE ANSWER IS: NO !
'M' defeats ONLY the consoles control systems, therefore it can be deemed to be akin to the Datel / Gameshark in its way of working. Of course, he Datel / Gameshark disk are the ONLY disks that load directly from the defeat (lucky them), so it appears that this defeat of the system can be 'overlooked' conveniently !
technically, the ways of owrking are completely different, but in context with the 'end reasult', we are merely stating that the 'M' fools the console, and so does the Datel and Gameshark to attain it's desired results, and this 'foooling' is the requirement of defeating the control system. (or protection).
(But its interesting to see that these disk from Datel / Gameshark are quite easily 'upgraded' to provide the necessary functions with such as simple item as a paperclip, knife or a credit card): some interesting links given below:
http://www.ps2ownz.com/cardswap.htm
http://www.ps2ownz.com/paperclipswap.html
http://www.ps2ownz.com/cogswap.html
The above methods used by those that seek an expanded result from the defeated control system.
It should be noted, that with all the above, the control system on the game disks from Sony still remains intact.
It's interesting to think on a few matters:
Channel Technology have NEVER sold a pic-type modchip of the type such as for instance (take a NEO 2) for the PS2. This by far is probably the most popular brand of modchip, and sites all over the internet sell them without hinderance. There must be millions of these devices sold throughout the world, and the software for such devices (hex code), is freely available for download. (their purposes clearly explained where Subsequently, the sale of Datel & Gameshark Software rocketed because of the public's knowledge of their unison.
(using a pic-mod with Datel software = Interesting results). The end result of this unison is of course, playback of unlicensed media. Although there are 'millions' of these devices on sale, and we never sold any of them, we are apparently deemed 'more culperable' because our version did not need a disk-swap.
SHEESH !!!
Is not the end result exactly the same thing ?
We could understand a little more if the unison between these two products allowed Imported Games to play, but they DO NOT... FACT, therefore, the ONLY use of a PIC-BASED modchip, is to play Unlicensed Media.. this is a BIG FULL STOP !
It's interesting to note how a 'level of Technology' now comes into play with the onslaught of Sony against Channel Technology. Although Channel Technology NEVER contributed ONE single pic-based modchip to the millions in use on PS2 consoles throughout the world, the one Professional design in the world that allowed legal playing of Imported Original games, and gave improvements such as full screen playback on these, and also took care to leave the copyrighted logo in place in the machine, is the one that stirs the mighty wrath of the giant Sony Corporation to see an end to it even before release, and will probably end the Channel Technology business.
Is it a fair world we live in ?
As proprietor of Channel Technology, I have to say a big NO to that question. I sat by here and NEVER became involved in the mass sales of these crappy 'pic-based' mods that were being advertised as 'play your CDR backups' and were flooding the world etc. and watched the world go by without becoming a part of this. If we were to bring forward a design, it would be a technically CORRECT design, that MUST play original imported games. (Our BM3 design was capable of playing imported PSX titles (a first on PS2), but the PS2 titles capabilities were not to come until developed by our eastern colleagues).
Moving on to a slightly altered topic, let's look at the scenario of someone who has a modified 'M' machine, and compare it to someone who has a modified NEO 2 Machine, with a Datel Action Replay disk, and these people are going to 'possibly' break the law by running pirated software:
Firstly the 'M' machine:
Human being has modified machine, wishes to play duplicated software. He may A) obtain a copy, or B) produce a copy himself.
If he travels road A), there is argument that he has bought pirate software, BUT, he HAS NOT defeated the control system on the disk himself, therefore there is argument that if he were to say purchase a HK Silver game (pressed disk manufactured in a factory), although he may well have bought a pirate disk (NOT ALL HK SILVER DISKS ARE PIRATE, THERE ARE MANY SLIDE-SHOW (XXX Rated) TITLES AVAILABLE FROM ASIA THAT ARE HK SILVER PRESSED DISKS THAT RUN ON THE PS2), he has NOT defeated the copy protection himself, therefore does not contravene any laws (such as section 296 of the Copyright, Patents and Designs act).
If the human produces a copy himself (using a cd-writer), then he MAY have infringed the law (This is not solid-set, and the law changes between different countries of the world). The UK laws state that 'where necessary', it is allowed that ONE backup of software be allowed.
This 'where necessary' clause can be deemed to be a little wide. For instance:
Human lives in the UK, and goes to the USA, and purchases / returns with a licensed game, and he will play on his 'M' upgraded console. BUT, after a few days in the grubby hands of the kids, he notices the disk is suffering. So he decides to make a backup, in the knowledge that he has little chance of obtaining a replacement from the USA as he will not receive 'support' outside the country. Is this now a 'where necessary' situation ?
But to dig deeper:
He now has his backup, which he has made under belief of the 'where necessary' clause. He places this backup in the console and 'M' boots the game.
What is now the scenario ?
Is 'M' illegal because it is booting a 'where necessary' instance ?
And if the owner of the 'where necessary' backup tried to boot his 'where necessary' backup on an UN-modified console, would the 'restrictions' imposed by the console actually be denying him of a legal right ?
Let's go another step further:
'M' would have had no way of knowing if the 'where necessary' title that was loaded was an original or backup. This is because as mentioned at the very top of this page, the patented technology was not available to it, so it must be asked:
QUESTION: Is 'M' playing the backup, or is the Human playing the backup ?And further, is the backup actually illegal, or falling under the 'where necessary' clause ?
The answer is summed in one quotation that I gave once on Messiah-worlds:
" 'M' does not play pirate software, Humans do" !
OK, so the human played the backup, and he did this by placing the disk in the tray and it booted. BUT, what happens if its a NEO2 ?:
Forget all the mumbly-jumbly, lets just look at the human playing his 'where necessary' backup:
To play with this version of chip, he first needs to load the Datel disk (defeats preliminary control system), and then he will use the NEO 2 to eject the disk tray and place his 'where necessary' backup in and the game will load.
WHAT is the difference ????, the backup is loaded and is playing !!!!!!!
Does 1+1 being sold as a package make ANY difference whatsoever ?
It appears it does, and although millions of 1+1's are on sale, its only the '1's that matter.
More food for thought:
Definitions: (in relative context)
CDR
(Media that is on recordable disks, can be software developed that will run on the PS2 if modified, this software can be found many places on the internet, and you will come across small game programs, graphics demonstrations, art etc. etc. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
DVDR
The same as above, but a different medium, 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
BACKUP
Could be a backup of the above mentioned software (not the original disk). 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
HK SILVERS
Factory pressed disk (usually silver bottomed), can be duplications of the software mentioned above, or in fact as seen recently, slide shows etc.
The 'conception' that HK Silver means 'illegal is totally false. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
DVD SILVERS
Exactly the same as above.
'M' will direct boot these without swap.
IMPORTS
Games / films purchased abroad, but shipped into your resident country. This is not illegal, and neither is the business of importing consoles. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
PS2 BACKUPS
Software written to run on the PS2 operating system, and then 'backed up' from the original disk (many forms of this available on the internet, again, graphics, animations, games etc.) 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
PSX Backups
Same as the above, but written for the PSX operating system. 'M' will direct boot these without swap.
So, when you look at the 'capabilities' of a design on a site, you make sure you understand the exact meanings that can be implied by functions stated.
Only the Illegally thinking mind thinks illegally !
'He's NOT the Messiah, and certainly not my savior,
But I followed him faithfully' !
(Gazza, 2001)
Re:Oh, well . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at their digital cameras, for example. While everyone else in the market standardized on one of two memory cards, Sony had to be different and require their own "Sony memory stick" instead.
When it comes to camcorders, they do things differently too. Everyone else sells DV capable camcorders that use "DV tape". Not Sony. Instead, they sell DV camcorders using Hi8 tape, and write to it in a proprietary fashion to achieve the same results. (Granted, they allow backwards compatibility *playing* normal Hi8 tape, so you don't feel too non-standard.)
People who used to sell home and car audio can attest to their tactics too. Quite often, Sony will go out of their way to use a proprietary connector or cable to attempt to lock you into using only Sony authorized accessories.
They get away with all of this for one big reason; the stuff is good quality. When it comes down to it, Sony sells all manner of electronics and does a damn good job of it. If you try to boycott Sony, you only shoot yourself in the foot at some point. Often-times, they have the best product for a particular item and price-point.