It's not a cut-and-dry matter of whether intellectual property "should be protected". I think most hackers expect some protection in the form of copyright. However, most hackers are also tinkerers and are disturbed that current IP law so heavily favors corporate interests, even to the extent where you cannot use something you rightfully own according to your own desires.
Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"?
What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"?
Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose.
Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"?
Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.
EULA's have nothing to do with copyright, it's plain contract law.
If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed?
If I am a shoe manufacturer with local retail outlets you and I agree that I will sell you my shoes for reselling overseas, but part of the agreement is that you won't sell them locally; should that be allowed?
If you and I agree that I will sell you a device but you will only use it under certain circumstances, should that be allowed?
I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations. Let people make their own agreements and then let the market decide. The only role the government has herein is to enforce contracts - what good are contracts when one party can decide retroactively that they don't like the terms anymore, and oh I don't want to cancel the contract, no I want to have my pie and eat it, too?
Technically yes, except with a PS3 your purchase amounts to agreement with the EULA; it's tucked away in a manual that no one reads, or at best is shown to the user on a screen during setup which is simply clicked through. Most people don't realize that they aren't buying the physical machine, they're buying the right to use the physical machine in approved ways only (this may be technically untrue, but it's certainly what it amounts to).
I find the fact that a contract can be agreed to in these ways unethical, especially when they are hidden under the guise of buying a physical product.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense. When you buy from a supplier, you are already bound by a number of contractual stipulations, (almost) nobody reads those, either. They're still enforceable, there are mountains of jurisprudence on that. Should contracts be void because one of the parties can't be bothered to check the content of the agreement? Or should suppliers force users to read the contract to be enforceable? Some software makes you scroll down before you can click 'agree'; is this not enough? Should it show you the dialog for a certain amount of time? Or maybe software shouldn't be sold online, you'd always have to go to a store, where a clerk forces you to read and then quizzes you on the content before selling you the software?
You say the contract is 'unethical'; I understand that position and in some cases agree, to an extent. But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
But do you agree with me that even if it's unethical, the principle is still sound and that the contract should be both enforceable and enforced?
That's total nonsense, at least in my country. Any abusive clause would be nulified, even if the rest of the contract is valid. You can't put in a contract anything. You can't give up rights that the law gives you no matter what. I.e. you can't sign to be a slave.
That's not what I said. Of course there are things that can't be contractually agreed. I hope you see the difference in moral weight that contracts to commit murder or be someone's slave have when compared to contracts that stipulate certain restrictions on the use of objects, restrictions that don't influence the normal, primary use case of the object.
Is there actual case law supporting the notion that I can be party to a contract on the basis of a bunch of legalese buried in a manual I'll never read, for a product I purchased through a third party?
I paid for a product, I own it. If Sony wants ridiculously extended protections that turn the arrangement into some kind of conditional rental, they'd damned well better force the Walmarts of the world to have us sign documents to that effect at the point of purchase. This implicit agreement stuff is nonsense.
Yes, there is. I can't easily present a list, especially not one that shows it for multiple jurisdictions, but EULA's have existed since the 1980's at least and the general concept is well-accepted, in many countries.
(there are discussions over implementation details: is a eula that is only shown after you install the software which is in shrinkwrapped box and that says that breaking the shrink wrap constitutes acceptance valid, for example. Those corner cases are beside the point, the thing is that the concept of a contract that regulates the use of software is broadly accepted, to the point that the actual simplest case isn't even litigated over since it's not a point of discussion.
There is no need to sign anything to make a contract. I don't know where that idea comes from, it's so misguided I don't even know where to begin. When you go to Starbucks and order a double frappuccino latte with extra whipped cream, and the girl behind the counter gives it to you, do you then say 'I'm not paying because we don't have a contract'? Of course not, there is a contract: they offer to sell coffee, you accept by ordering, the result is an obligation on their part to deliver coffee, and an obligation on your part to pay for it. No signature or paper or whatever needed.
So when you bought a physical copy of DOS 3.0 or Windows 3.1, you effective own DOS or Windows? My god man, you should assert your rights and claim your billions!
I see I'm being downvoted because HN is becoming more like reddit in terms of discussion and debate.
To make my point clearer: You can own a physical device, but the software (IP) on that device is not your property. Is anyone familiar with court cases that might set a precedent if the root key is considered a software feature or a hardware feature? My bet is Sony is claiming it to be a software feature, and thus, not part of the property you purchase when you buy a PS3.
You're being downvoted because your comment was snarky and seemed disingenuous. Nobody's saying that buying a copy of a piece of software grants you the copyright to that software (rather than ownership of that copy of the software), and a copyright is very obviously not analogous to a PC.
Is it? I buy a PC loaded with Windows. I own the hardware. I have a license to windows.
I buy a PS3. It is a computer loaded up with a OS to which I have a license. I can do what I want with the hardware, but the software isn't mine. An encryption key (in my mind) is a software component.
Upvote because I believe you raise a valid question.
The enforceability of the contract depends on many factors. I'm no lawyer, but from what I remember from my Computer Ethics course and from some quick wiki-research[1], most cases revolve around whether the user made reasonably aware that they are agreeing to the contract, and if there is a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract and returning the product.
I can't remember if my PS3 prompted me with a EULA when it first booted up, but it probably did. And I think the ability to return the product for a refund is considered a reasonable way of disagreeing with the contract. So it may be legally sound and enforceable, and in that respect I agree.
But it's common knowledge that the pattern of presenting a EULA with a submit button is not enough to make users read the terms of the agreement. Sony is using this fact to their advantage, as do most companies with restrictive EULAs. I'm against restrictive EULAs on principle, but particularly in the case of a physical good like a PS3 restricting you from using it, learning from it, modifying it, etc.
These things are intentionally made unreadable though. I'd be surprised if even people that spend a lot of time reading and encountering legal terms could sit through one unless they were trying to do something unusual and what to cover themselves.
EULA is shown to user, only after purchase is made.
SONY or their authorized retailers should first ask user if he/she agrees to EULA and only then take his/her money. Once you taking money upfront - you agree to any use of your device.
The DMCA explicitly disallows the publication of methods or programs that allow users to circumvent copy protection, from what I recall (not a lawyer). It's not a matter of a private contract, Sony's abuses have been enshrined by IP law, and that's the problem -- the person I was replying to was complaining that we don't believe in copyright generally. I don't think that's true, we just don't believe in copyright so extensive that you are not legally allowed to publish something imprinted on a device you own (even if that is imprinted electronically, like the PS3's encryption and signing keys).
Even so, clickwrap and EULA contracts are pretty lame. If your product must be distributed where end-users are restricted from doing things, then you should create a real contract that each party takes seriously.
"I think the government has no business in private contracts in any of the above situations."
It is quite a stretch to extend rules from the above situations, which are clearly contracts between more or less equal partners to corporation/consumer retail, where the balance of power is so heavily skewed against the consumer.
"If you and I are neighbors and we agree that you I will pay you 250$ a month to not park you car in front of my house (while you legally have a right to do so), should that not be allowed?"
I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in the UK there are a number of legal rights that cannot be signed away. For example, tenancy agreements with illegal clauses are simply enforceable for those clauses, whether it's signed or not. Another example; one cannot consent to Grievous Bodily Harm, even if you really want to (this one was taken all the way through the legal system when someone consented to having a nail hammered through a rather sensitive part of his body).
> Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed.
This is often cited as the reason for copyright. Was this the actual historical reason, or just some windowdressing after the fact? (And the wording of the law in America doesn't count. It that argument hold any water, the USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't be so funny.)
Wikipedia has something like "The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers." and similar lines.
If you want more on the history of copyright in general, I suggest looking up the works of one William Patry. He's written extensively on the subject, was the former general counsel for Google, and now writes on the subject at his blog:
And I know it's not the first copyright law (we flaunted it for years before developing our own), but the reason copyright is allowed in the USA is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I know that line from the preamble of the Copyright Clause, is cited in every discussion about copyright that involves at least one American. But I doubt it's the actual reason.
To come back to my example, the USA PATRIOT act starts with "[An act] to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [...]" but do you think that's the only reason they passed it?
(I don't believe the USA PATRIOT act is a good example, it's just the first I could think of at the top of my head. If you look at some acts that introduce tariffs, you'll probably see more obvious hypocrisy, where it's clear that the act was introduced because some lobbyist got their say.
If you want a simple reason, I doubt you'll find one. Each of the people who agreed to that no doubt had their own reasons for doing so and I honestly don't know if we know what all they are. All I can point you to is what they agreed upon to give as their explanation.
Also, that wasn't the "preamble" to anything, that was the entire Copyright Clause. It's from the list of Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 (the clause itself being clause 8), if you want to check for yourself:
> Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright.
It depends. Did they sell me the oven at below cost, and their plan for not losing money overall depends on people not using the ovens for brownies? If that were the case, I'd consider buying the oven and satisfying my brownie desires some other way.
The argument of below-cost hardware sales comes up frequently, yet I'm not at all sure it's true. Nintendo have certainly gone on record as saying the Wii was _never_ sold for below hardware cost (don't have a reference to hand, sorry); I don't follow the scene enough any more to know the general current position but it's far from a given that hardware sales are subsidised by software.
Frankly I'd much rather see the whole thing opened up and made more reasonable and competitive, into a proper market. Microsoft don't have any say over who releases what for Windows, Apple don't have a say over who releases what for OS X (though are heading down a slippery slope with the App Store following iOS...) - I see no legitimate reason for the games market to be different. If the hardware cost goes up, fine - we're still below the real-terms cost of the earlyish 16 bit era.
Yes, the Wii hardware was sold at a profit. The PS3, though, was definitely at a loss. People took it apart, and the total cost of parts at the best prices available in available in large volume was well over the retail price (not all of which goes to Sony).
Interesting, particularly as it suggests the XBox 360 has been sold at a profit for at least four years now. So, of the three major home systems (as distinct from portables), at least two are being sold at a profit, further reducing the argument in favour of restricting their use due to recovering initial costs.
What makes most sense probably is for them to restrict use initially when (1) there is a shortage of hardware and (2) the hardware is often being sold at a loss per unit.
When the hardware is not being sold at a loss (which was from day one for Wii, and after years for the others) and the units are readily available so that repurposing isn't preventing gamers from getting them, then dropping all restrictions makes sense. They'll sell more units (which is good for them since the units are profitable per unit) and hence make more money.
Would you buy an oven if there was a big label that said "IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE THIS OVEN FOR BROWNIES; ALL BROWNIE BAKERS WILL BE PROSECUTED"? Do you think laws that allow that kind of thing are good? Remember, this isn't a rented oven, you bought the whole thing outright. Why should there be laws that allow hardware makers to say "THIS COMPUTER CAN ONLY RUN MOBILE OS 5.5; ALL USERS OF NON-MOBILE OS 5.5 WILL BE PROSECUTED"?
What about (cooling it on the caps) "it is illegal to publish the words etched into the bottom of this oven. Do not read the words on the bottom of this oven"?
Copyright was originated to make the creation of intellectual property economically worthwhile so that more intellectual content could be produced and distributed. I think we crossed that threshold a long time ago and now we've gone way overboard into the other extreme; our current laws actively discourage creativity, which is the exact opposite of their purpose.
Why doesn't your post say, "It seems many companies don't believe that those that purchase their hardware have a right to use it according to their own dictates. If these companies don't believe in that, don't mass produce and sell your product to everyone!"?
Surely massive distribution with no restriction on buyers is a horrible way to keep a secret.