Sony 'Anti-Used Game' Patent Explored 435
Sometime in 2000, Sony patented a process that would 'verify a disc as legitimate, register the disc to that particular game console, then wipe out verification data so the disc would be rendered unreadable in other PlayStations'. Despite unrest in the gaming community over this technology, the company has repeatedly stated they have no plans to use it in the PS3. The LA Times explores this persistent debate, examining why Sony developed the tech and why gamers are nervous. From the article: "Whatever Sony's plans, the tempest [over the patent] illustrates the changing nature of ownership as millions of people accumulate vast collections of digital entertainment. Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection." Thanks to 1up.com for the link.
Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blockbusted (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright Laws (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it is time to rethink the current legal method of digital ownership. Copyright laws, even the most current ones that lawyers attempt to enforce still are based on earlier, non-digital cases.
While precedent has its place, maybe it isn't the best method of deriving new laws.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:4, Insightful)
I almost always rent a console game before I buy it because I don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a $70 POS that I'll hate after a week.
Games are way too expensive to allow those kind of restrictions on them.
I think a move like that will ensure that only big name titles get purchased and it will choke the life out of smaller games that nobody will want to pay for without the security of being able to sell them if they suck.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Single console copies for the home market.
2. Multiple console copies for the rental market.
#2 will cost more than #1, but not so much that Blockbuster will want to leave the video game rental business.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I hate Sony anyway, so I'm all in favor of them implementing this kind of scheme. Nintendo Wii FTW.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:3, Insightful)
Doubt it, unless this was an industry-wide thing. More likely, launch sales would be crap as people waited for reviews, and companies not using the tech would see a significant bump in market share as well.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's very incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.
FWIW, she said selling COPIES of your music collection is illegal.
Re:Wii is not so great either (Score:1, Insightful)
And, more importantly, the Wii's form factor is TINY, so it's pretty easy to move to, say, a friend's house to play one of the downloaded games.
Call for "zonked" flag (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about the FUD and this is the minimum weekly dose.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm on my third Playstation 2 right now, and if I had to rebuy the games every time I got a new console, I'd have some yelling and screeming to do.
First PS2 was stolen when I was moving out of the dorms in college.
Second PS2 (which I bought I week before, replacing the first PS2) broke. I was living in a hotel for a summer internship and the maid service that came through knocked it off the desk I had it on.
Why This is an Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Other reasons? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Try it.
Dig out your receipts, get the police crime reference and contact the publishers/RIAA.
It might cost you a small amount, but technically you should be able to do it.
In the world of software, usually you can get replacement media for a restocking and admin fee.
Even in the world of games, you can do this.
If they won't do it with all this clear evidence then you will come away with proof that you own the data and it was not a license in the first place.
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
This just might be my new favorite quote.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:4, Insightful)
But it doesn't violate anything for people to sell THEIR copy of their music collection. Denying that right through this system denies me the Right of First Sale, and thus denies me my fair-use rights.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious how this would effect those of us with multiple consoles or when you upgrade to the next generation. For instance the PS2 plays PS1 games, the PS3 will play PS2 and PS1 games... will the PS4 play PS3 games if all the licenses are stored on the PS3?
Re:Umm... did they change the OTHER law to that to (Score:4, Insightful)
The digital realm has offered companies the opportunity to claim that you are only licensing the content, not purchasing a product. That's a legal battle yet to be fought, but given the dollars and players involved, I foresee first sale doctrine being nullified - at least for all digital works - within the next decade.
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? You're saying Napster and P2P was starting because the consumers felt like they got dissed yo... give me a break. People want free shit. Bottom line... they'll pay for it only when getting it free isn't worth it (e.g. AllofMp3). Consumers, on the whole, could give a shit about copyright owners... they only care about whether or not they'll get caught.
The studios lie in the ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:1, Insightful)
Not that duh actually. Copyright laws are not new, and neither is laws against copying games, movies, and more. For many many years now (since VHS) there have been the FBI warning at the start of the movie warning against copying or playing in non-private use. For years people have heard about intellectual property laws.
It's not that people dont know about it, it's people don't care about it. As long as people think they will not get caugh (and chances are a person won't) then they will continue to break the law.
The electronics industry is seemingly insane with their obsession to beat down their consumers
No, they are defending their IP which is there right. How many times do people on
We did have a blast the first day with the phones, and even found a couple of trick ways to get our own customized dial tones to the phones without paying for downloads. But, aha, Verizon was on to those tricks
I hate verizon for their drming of the V710 bluetooth, for their ringtone policies, etc....and you know what I have to say to anyone else who hates them - change carriers. There are plenty out there. Breaking any contractual agreements (I would imagine verizon has an anti-hacking agreement) is wrong. If you sign an agreement (and you did when you bought the phone) then own up to it. If there was a EULA, then either agree to it or return the product for a refund (which you have 30 days to do so).
Treat the consumers with respect, and honesty
They are honest. All their terms are in their EULA, contract, etc. If you didn't read it then that is on you, not them. As for respect, when you give them respect - you know by not breaking their TOS - then they will give you respect by not sueing you into the ground.
But go on, live behind the shelter of anonymity.
Doctrine of First Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection."
No, no, no, how can the LA Times get something so basic so wrong?
Buyers of legal copies of copyrighted works are buying the physical copy, and have a right to sell that legal copy to someone else. A book, a CD, a DVD, an Excel CD. It is called The Doctrine of First Sale.
Sony would of course prefer that you didn't know this. But now you do.
It's really quite simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's an important difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
Fine. But there's a big difference between selling copies of CDs (or games) in your collection, and selling the only original copy. I've heard rumors for a while that RIAA, MPAA, and other groups were planning on going after the used music/movie/game industry. Since when are you required to own a product for life once you buy it? As long as you transfer all copies/licenses to a new party, you should be able to give or sell any media you have purchased to someone else. And there is no reason why record companies, game publishers, or movie studios deserve another cut of that purchase price (I've also heard rumors that record companies are trying to squeeze some percentages out of used music sales). This is getting ridiculous.
Re:Just exactly like the corporations! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:2, Insightful)
See... this againt is my point. It really isn't about sticking up the artist. It's about justifying your copyright violation. You don't have money or don't have a lot expendable money so you choose to pirate. Nothing changed in the music industry between then and now that somehow made it far better for the bands (although this whole "the band gets screwed" argument is played out).
I agree that big business copyright holders have had their interests pushed too far... I'd like to see the public domain expand and copyrights be limited to 30 years. But that doesn't justify copyrigh infringement.
Be man, and just admit that according to your ethic if you want something that's copyrighted it's ok to just take it.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
No disrespect intended, but Lassaiz-faire doesn't work. At least it doesn't work in the modern world. I'm sure that, at one time, people may have gone to a dishonest carpenter, felt cheated, told their friends, and eventually killed the carpenter's business based on poor word-of-mouth.
In today's entertainment market, however, that is not an option. If Rockstar game refuses to make "Grand-Theft-Auto: Branson, Missouri" on any system other than PS3, then people will buy a PS3, and they will gladly buy two copies so they can play it on the new PS3 they buy when their first PS3 spontaneously explodes, six months after being purchased (Tell me you don't know somebody who has had a defective PS2). Also, there is a good chance that Sony will work out some deal with Rockstar games, to assure that the game doesn't get released on any other system.
As for modding, most people won't do it because 1). The process often requires you to break open the system and solder in a chip, running the risk of turning a $350+ game system into a paperweight, and 2). The DMCA makes it illegal for stores or people with any kind of real skill to solder a chip in. The end result is that, if you want to pay $60 for a chip, and if you know someone you trust with your system, then you can get it modded, but most people aren't that "into" gaming.
The only thing that can kill a system or hardware is a lack of high quality games, and DMCA cripplling is like spanish fly to the people who make those games.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
This problem is already solved for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Not flaimbait, I'm quite serious.)
Re:Blockbusted (Score:4, Insightful)
How much do you want to bet that the "license" (and I use the term very loosely) specifically exempts them from any and all responsibility for replacement? License terms can be anything the vendor wants, and if the license says that you are only allowed to use the game on the console for which it was purchased, you're S.O.O.L, and it serves you right if you give them any money. Now, that wouldn't bother me quite as much if the game only cost five bucks
The entertainment industry in general has been completely unwilling to replace anything for any reason, because they reason that if they replace it for free you won't buy a replacement. Logical enough, if you don't care about your customer base hating your guts and feeling ripped off. Should Sony (or anyone else) implement such restrictions I'll not be buying their products, that's for sure.
More generally, these corporations don't really seem to grasp that the value of the entertainment media and software we buy doesn't revolve entirely around jacking a shiny plastic disc into our own personal player (that one and only player that they seem to assume all of us have, would ever want, or should ever be allowed to own.) Squeezing out the ability to share our new acquisitions with friends and family may seem like a good idea from a financial perspective, and in the short term it probably is. A longer view would tell them that removing the social value from their offerings is going to cost them plenty.
This really isn't only about the money, or the law, as much as the media corporations would like you to believe. It is about control, control of distribution, and control of usage. They feel that they have the right to dictate where and how we can buy their products and, even more destructively, how we can use them. Interestingly, copyright law (at least, copyright law that existed up 'til the time when they paid to have it rewritten) did not provide for this. The law granted us a fair amount of control in terms of how we use the media we purchase. That's been largely eliminated for most people, in terms of both copyright law and technological measures. And so we are boldly going where no man has ever wanted to go.
Re:Umm... did they change the OTHER law to that to (Score:3, Insightful)
That battle shall be fought with the lawyering equivalent of tac nukes, I predict. I'm getting the popcorn ready.
Motives for the patent? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Altruistic reasons. Sony is a nice company and they don't want other companies to screw their customers in this fashion. (My opinion: unlikely)
2) Licensing revenue. If other companies want to screw their customers in this fashion at least Sony will get a cut of the action. (My opinion: very likely)
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be legal to make unlimited copies for personal use. e.g. backups, high-use situations where the media could be damaged, copies for work & the car, etc. Since the DMCA we lost this right as long as there is encryption involved. Expect all future media to have encryption, so backups are no longer legal. Copies for the car or for work no longer legal. Giving children throwaway copies to chew on no longer legal. Copyright laws have changed. Many times. Including recently. We're losing rights like crazy, the public domain stopped growing, and I don't think it's fair.
Re:there's a reason so few realize the rules (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand with software, there is a license. There is a nice(sarcasm) little EULA window that explains the license. When I buy a movie, music, or console game there is no license anywhere that I can find. I certainly do not sign anything or even click an "I agree button." I do understand that I am not at liberty to distribute copies of those, but that is in no way because I agreed to a license for that. I am aware of copyright laws that say I have to have a license authorizing me to distribute copies.
Furthermore, while I am bound by law(not any license I know of) not to distribute copies, there is nothing wrong with me selling or loaning my original disk to anyone. I am not transfering a license, so far as I know, I am transferring a physical item to which certain laws passed by Congress apply.
Once again, this does not apply to actual software, but I have never willingly agreed to any license for any music, movie, or console game I have ever bought. If they think I am, and that license is in any way more restrictive then "You will not distribute copies of this item or parts thereof and, in general, accept the copyright laws", then I will never again buy cds or DVD movies (console games may still call to me....).
Can anyone clarify if there is actually a license and where I might find the exact terms?
Re:Blockbusted (Score:4, Insightful)
Games are for fun, they can bring friends together, create memories and good times...
If sony wants to take that away from games... so be it. I'm not dragging the console and the game over to a friends house just to play it.
When will sony create a technology that prevents me from borrowing my friends game controller... and forcing me to buy another just so he can play, rather than bring his over...
When will they force me to have a SONY ONLY television...
Fuck Sony. Sony has to be aware of the growing hatred for its entire brand.... they have to be... dont they?
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reality is actually different (Score:2, Insightful)
b) You might want to fix the link in your sig.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:2, Insightful)
What fucking license? (Score:5, Insightful)
I repeat: What fucking license?
What papers did I recieve? What papers did I sign? Just where in this huge universe can I actually find this license you are talking about?
The answers are ofcourse: No, no, nowhere. So what license are you guys even talking about?
I buy it. The game is mine. Sure, the copyright ain't, but that's an entirely different matter. The game is mine, I own it. Stop perpetuating this goddamn bullshit. Stop being the entertainment industries bitches who are mindlessly brainwashing people who still know better.
I don't know how stuff works in the US, but here in Norway if I buy anything, it is mine. Anyone trying to pull any tricks on that, can be taken to court.
As it should be.
Repeat after me: There is no license.
This might be mod'ed down to GNAA levels. I don't care. I have plenty of karma.
This is illegal. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what happens if the console breaks or its CD drive wears out and you have to buy a new one? all of a sudden you can't play your own collection of games anymore, even though you've bought a licence to use the software.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:4, Insightful)
I've long believed that this is Sony's Master Plan, only discussed in ultra-high level meetings with only C*Os present.
Think about how wide a reach Sony has, in terms of the types of products and services they offer. Today (in Japan, at least) you could buy a Sony movie, to play on your Sony Blu-Ray player, viewed on your Sony TV. Then you could buy the Sony CD of the soundtrack, listen to it on your Sony ATRAC player (after ripping it using your Sony computer), purchasing it all with your Sony credit card while sitting in the house that the Sony mortgage helped you buy. Think about how much money they would make if they could force you to do it. Think about how hard they try to get you to want to do it.
I'm not generally a conspiracy-theorist, but I can only imagine the pools of drool that form on the table at the aformentioned meetings when thought is given to this topic, and it makes my skin crawl.
Now, while I wait for Sony's black helicopters to take me away for some R&R at Sony Happy Fun Land, I'll leave you with this last disturbing thought...
What if you also worked for Sony?
Re:What fucking license? (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT WAY THE FUCK UP!
There is no license, not even a click-through EULA attached to this stuff. It's copyright-bound, yes, but not licensed. And I do know how stuff works in the US. I live in the US. This is the way it is. You are not licensing "content" from these companies. You are purchasing a shiny plastic disk with "content" on it, and you are given full property rights, but no copyrights. You can use, abuse, sell, cut, mark, bend, spindle, or mutilate that item however you want to, but you may not copy it with intent to distribute (sell or give, and no, "making sure someone doesn't steal the original" is not intent to distribute). You can copy it for your personal use and the use of those in your immediate social group (family, roommates, etc. - generally those living in your household at any given time).
The government would be wise to crack down on this sort of corporate abuse of general law. The Romans survived for 7 centuries, 5 of them in a fairly opressive but wealthy empire, and their main reason is that they knew not to fuck with "bread and circuses". As long as you keep people fed and entertained, they won't rise up and kick your ass. It's in the best interest of the American Empire to keep the circuses uninterrupted and relatively uncontrolled. Corporations will probably realize this fact about ten seconds too late, just as the government installs their organizational heads on a chopping block... or throws their suit-laced asses into an arena filled with lions. I'm betting on the lions - and I'll bet they're done before I finish this washtub of popcorn.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:5, Insightful)
Some lawyers walk off with a few million and everyone who bought a PS3 gets a check for $6.71... or worse, a coupon for $10 off their next PS3 game purchase.
That'll put Sony in their place.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, your doctor requires that you sign a contract waiving the right to sue him for doing his job in the manner you expect him to. Basically, you expect him to cure what ails you then bill your insurance company. Your insurance company expects you to prove that you have a valid claim. So you, in turn, expect the doctor to tell the insurance company that your claim is valid and why. That requires him to release some of your otherwise-private information. He simply wants a guarantee that you won't sue him for doing so. You aren't waiving your rights (you don't have a right to sue private parties - it's a freedom, not a right).
Contracts cannot waive rights. Period. It's well established in contract law. The commonly-given example is that in order for you to breathe air while standing on my property, I require you to sign a contract that signs over your firstborn child to me. It's not legal. I can't make you give things like that as a contractual obligation. You have the right to keep your children until you endanger them. Your children have the right to stay with their parent(s). I can't destroy rights in a contract. Period. And neither can Sony.
Blockbuster would have the Right of First Sale if they indeed bought those items from Sony. The only way Sony could get around this is to only rent or lease those items to Blockbuster in the first place, and that would be a nightmare for both companies. Sony would have to maintain a huge supply of constantly damaged disks, and Blockbuster wouldn't be able to make that extra buck from used game sales. (They'd miss it a lot - it's 100% profit. Gravy.)
Saying that it's throwing up FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the writeup was actually not too bad as it mentioned that. But why bring up the whole topic at all when Sony has said repeatedly it is irrelevant? In the end, again as the comments show, they main result is to make many people think this is what Sony is going to do.
I'm not a Sony fanboy, I enjoy other gaming systems as well and think the 360 is actually pretty good. What I do not like is article after article spreading mindless fear about what brand of Evil Sony is up to today. I'd feel the same way if a similar unbalanced view of the Wii or even the 360 was presented - however there is no need to write such a response because you will not see word one against the sainted 360 here on Slashdot.
Re:Blockbusted (Score:2, Insightful)
If I don't agree before the sale transpires (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, this assumes rule by law not by social position, and I leave it to the reader to decide whether our courts rule by law or by social position.....
Re:Blockbusted (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, that's already the status quo.