Moderator: Thanas
Personally I doubt that you will be able to get a hack that just disables the part that only lets the game work on one console. You will probably also have to get a hack that lets you play burned copies of the game.CDiehl wrote:First, I give it two weeks before someone cracks that piece of technology once the PS3 comes out. Second, this plan's going to go over about as well as the music industry trying something analogous with a CD.
You sure? With programs like 3ds Max its like this. You have to get a special reselling licence from Autodesk if you want to sell your copy of Max. This liscence is really hard to get and if granted it´s attached to a reselling fee of 500€.Edi wrote:Sony can pontificate all they want and it's not going to affect anyone here at all. The consumer protectionlaws we have in place mean that the courts are going to tell Sony to fuck off and that a used game market is perfectly legal here.
Edi
The difference between a licence and actually owning a copy is, licences are applied to intangible propierties, licences don't represent actual end products, in the case of 3D Studio the licence is used to aquire the ability to create 3d models, which you own, Oracle is used to create databases, which you own, Word is used to create text files, which you own, those files are the actual end product.salm wrote:You sure? With programs like 3ds Max its like this. You have to get a special reselling licence from Autodesk if you want to sell your copy of Max. This liscence is really hard to get and if granted it´s attached to a reselling fee of 500€.
I hate corporatism as much as the next guy, but that sounds like bullshit to me. Software licenses are licenses to use the software; it doesn't matter whether that software is for "productivity" or entertainment. If CATIA can make it illegal for you to resell their software, then I don't see why Sony can't.Shogoki wrote:The difference between a licence and actually owning a copy is, licences are applied to intangible propierties, licences don't represent actual end products, in the case of 3D Studio the licence is used to aquire the ability to create 3d models, which you own, Oracle is used to create databases, which you own, Word is used to create text files, which you own, those files are the actual end product.
Licenses exist to protect the companies because you can't "own" the ability to create those files, that's the company's property (you only own the actual content you created), if you could do that, the companies would be screwed, someone could buy a copy and then rent it around for or resell it as many times as you want, since the ability to create content would be intelectual propierty they own, and it would be legal.
The problem here, is Sony's trying to apply it to end products, video games, music and movies are not productivity tools, you wont build a new videogame from a copy of ffxiii. The proposition is pretty weak, and could be easily kicked out of courts, but, given the US's corporation cocksucking i wouldnt be too suprised if it stuck.
Program EULAs do not fucking trump the law of the land. What part of that is hard to understand? EULAs are a contract that the user agrees to, it's true, but they're on fairly shaky ground in court if in conflict with laws because there is no real ability to negotiate with the other party. If you require the program and there are no alternatives, it's much like having a gun held to your head. Can you imagine what our laws have to say about things like that? There is a clear provision in Finnish contract law that extortionate contracts are not valid, and that unreasonable restrictions resulting from strongarming by one party can be ignored. Then there are consumer protection laws that take a very dim view of this kind of shit. If an end user uses the program for a while, then does not need it anymore, sells it onward and destroys all copies he had, there's little the company can do. I certainly would not want to argue their case in court.salm wrote:You sure? With programs like 3ds Max its like this. You have to get a special reselling licence from Autodesk if you want to sell your copy of Max. This liscence is really hard to get and if granted it´s attached to a reselling fee of 500€.Edi wrote:Sony can pontificate all they want and it's not going to affect anyone here at all. The consumer protectionlaws we have in place mean that the courts are going to tell Sony to fuck off and that a used game market is perfectly legal here.
Edi
While that phrase annoys me too, the previous owner did lower the price, and I consider that an improvement.Darth Wong wrote:By the way, it's USED GAMES, not "pre-owned" games, goddammit. I hate fucking marketing doubletalk. "Pre-owned" makes it sound like the previous owner somehow improved the product for you.
Actually, the reason contracts cannot trump the law is that one of the requirements of a legally binding contract is lawful purpose. It's not about your ability or inability to negotiate terms. Even completely non-negotiable contracts are binding if they meet the legal requirements of a contract.Edi wrote:Program EULAs do not fucking trump the law of the land. What part of that is hard to understand? EULAs are a contract that the user agrees to, it's true, but they're on fairly shaky ground in court if in conflict with laws because there is no real ability to negotiate with the other party.
Come now, as much as I dislike overzealous IP laws this is quite a stretch; nobody could possibly claim with a straight face in court that anyone needs a PS3 game. It's a pure luxury item, and as such, it cannot possibly be considered extortionistic behaviour to withold it pending agreement to contractual terms, even unreasonable ones.If you require the program and there are no alternatives, it's much like having a gun held to your head. Can you imagine what our laws have to say about things like that? There is a clear provision in Finnish contract law that extortionate contracts are not valid, and that unreasonable restrictions resulting from strongarming by one party can be ignored. Then there are consumer protection laws that take a very dim view of this kind of shit.
That depends on what exact consumer protection laws are in place in Finland, and how they are worded.If an end user uses the program for a while, then does not need it anymore, sells it onward and destroys all copies he had, there's little the company can do. I certainly would not want to argue their case in court.
It's a different matter in places where consumer protection and well crafted contract laws do not exist and where the other laws reflect the fact that legislatures are nothing but the whipped bitches for IP lobbying organizations.
Edi
True. As long as they do meet legal requirements, I've no beef with them, but most EULAs for software produced in e.g. the US run afoul of one Finnish law or another.Darth Wong wrote:Actually, the reason contracts cannot trump the law is that one of the requirements of a legally binding contract is lawful purpose. It's not about your ability or inability to negotiate terms. Even completely non-negotiable contracts are binding if they meet the legal requirements of a contract.Edi wrote:Program EULAs do not fucking trump the law of the land. What part of that is hard to understand? EULAs are a contract that the user agrees to, it's true, but they're on fairly shaky ground in court if in conflict with laws because there is no real ability to negotiate with the other party.
I was referring to the Autodesk case Salm brought up. The PS3 case has more merit, but it's still shaky here, because Finnish contract law stipulates that unreasonable contract conditions may be mediated. So if a company takes a user top court on those grounds just because the EULA says you may not resell the game, it may not have a very strong case, because consumer protection laws generally restrict the ability of companies to dictate such things. It's much like a shovel-making company saying that you may not resell their shovel.Darth Wong wrote:Come now, as much as I dislike overzealous IP laws this is quite a stretch; nobody could possibly claim with a straight face in court that anyone needs a PS3 game. It's a pure luxury item, and as such, it cannot possibly be considered extortionistic behaviour to withold it pending agreement to contractual terms, even unreasonable ones.Edi wrote:If you require the program and there are no alternatives, it's much like having a gun held to your head. Can you imagine what our laws have to say about things like that? There is a clear provision in Finnish contract law that extortionate contracts are not valid, and that unreasonable restrictions resulting from strongarming by one party can be ignored. Then there are consumer protection laws that take a very dim view of this kind of shit.
I'd have to check the exact wording, but generally a consumers are allowed to resell a products they've bought, subject to the restrictions on copying that come from IP laws. It's been brought up in public discourse a few times, and the opinions I've seen fromlegal experts have been pretty unanimous on it.Darth Wong wrote:That depends on what exact consumer protection laws are in place in Finland, and how they are worded.Edi wrote:If an end user uses the program for a while, then does not need it anymore, sells it onward and destroys all copies he had, there's little the company can do. I certainly would not want to argue their case in court.
It's a different matter in places where consumer protection and well crafted contract laws do not exist and where the other laws reflect the fact that legislatures are nothing but the whipped bitches for IP lobbying organizations.
