Sony friendly topics

[Guest]

I want to begin discussion on the limit of topics for dev with respect to consideration for Sony.

For example, for PS2 dev, topics that touch on copyright infringing activities are clearly disallowed from this site: backups, modchipping, sharing bios, ripping audio and visual elements from games, etc...

As mrbrown pointed out eloquently, the ability of ps2dev members to self-police can be important to how we are peceived by Sony.

I would not presume that any actions on our part necessarily would result in positive actions in return by Sony. What is most important, I feel, is that at a minimum we are able to evoke neutral feelings, as opposing to wavering ambivalence leading towards unease or outright negativity.

An attitude that often seems to serve well is, "I am not doing this as an official member of the industry, but I would like to behave as if I were". In the cases of some PS2Dev members, they are in the industry anyway, which does help.

So leading back to PSPdev, what standards or topics do we cross the lines on ?

For example, I still have my own unease about topics of breaking encryptions and finding keys, or hacking at the UMD media. But is this concern justified, and are there any other topics specific to the PSP we may wish to discourage (aside from obviously off-topics) ?

This may be a good time to discuss.

[kry.sys]

I feel that Sony will feel uneasy about anything we (you guys) are doing.

To an extent I see Sony as standing tall above us laughing and thinking "what are they doing? hahahaha" as we monkeys run around in circles. (as with all semi-blind development)

Then every once in a while one monkey will reach for that red shiny button and every Sony exec screams for their lives with Cease and desists like it was the seventh world war.

so (in my opinion) we can probably do what ever we want as long as we don’t succeed.

HOWEVER... I like to succeed... or be a part of a succeeding community. we will succeed. and when that happens we cant give Sony any good reason to shut us down.

One thing I know is discouraged is cracking keys for encryption. how unlikely it is, if it were ever done it would REALLY hurt the psp as a platform.

another is attempting to crack the SSL on wireless game etc. don’t remember seeing anyone talk about this yet but its another one of those things that just kills the community (psp wireless community)... people will be afraid to play online if every slashdot article for the next month talks about how insecure the psp is all of a sudden.

In general Sony does not like people like us.. we are put within bounds and have to follow these bounds. but...

Code: Select all

FCC Part 15 Class B, 15.247
This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: 

    This device may not cause harmful interference. 

    This device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation. 				

[Guest]

Great post, I would like to comment more later, but just one part I will nit-pick on to prevent any misunderstandings...

we are put within bounds and have to follow these bounds. but...

Code: Select all

FCC Part 15 Class B, 15.247
This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: 

    This device may not cause harmful interference. 

    This device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation. 				

Two things:
1. This is applicable only to US law as enforced by the FCC. So, outside the US, only the laws of other countries apply.
2. The terminology of the sentences can be confusing if one only considers it by their common definitions, rather than the legal definitions used by the FCC. It is unlikely to apply in any meaningful way to dev.

I will attempt to paraphrase based on my understand as someone who has an FCC license:
Interference - Something that negatively affects the quality of a transmitted radio-frequency signal.

Harmful Interference - Interference that prevents meaningful reception of an RF signal to a device/operator that was given license to operate in those frequencies.

May not cause - Affects both owners and makers. The owner is responsible if harmful interference is generated, but I suspect a manufacturer can be held liable if it affecting a enough units to be a problem.

Taken together "This device may not cause harmful interference" means that the PSP can nuke another PSP, a TV reception, a wireless phone, etc... because they are all part 15 devices. But if it nukes police/medical emergency frequencies, ham, aircraft, etc... that specific unit and its operator are breaking the law.

Must accept - The operators of this device have no legal recourse. In this case, it means the person who owns the PSP, not the one who makes it.
Any interference...including...undesirable operation - Anything else can interefere with it, even if it does more than disrupt simple reception, such as disrupting the CPU itself. "Undesirable" here is from the point of view of the device operator, not the manufacturer.

Taken all together, This device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation. applies to the device and its operator, in the context of receiving RF interference. If someone transmits with properly operating radio equipment and the legal rights to do so, but due to the nature of RF harmonics your device inadvertently picks it up and is hosed (tv or PSP, for example), you have no recourse under law.

Thats it. There are no special rights granted by those rules at all. It only tells what the device must not do, and what you as the device operator must accept in return.

Note, I am not a lawyer, but I was thoroughly tested on my understanding of these FCC rules and regulations, many years ago. Take this with whatever grain of salt.

[J.F.]

I've gotten boards FCC approved before, and all that is correct. It's a proper interpretation compared to what was suggested before.

[kry.sys]

i understand why the its there. but your telling me interference such as **THEORY START** invalid communications that cause the device to run arbitry code **THEROY END** won't hold up in court with part 15. i was told once it would in a similar case. but i guess thats what i get for trusting what i am told and read...


getting a little off topic... so a simple "no you retard!" will do..

[Guest]

but your telling me interference such as **THEORY START** invalid communications that cause the device to run arbitry code **THEROY END** won't hold up in court with part 15.

Correct. Other laws are far more likely to come into play in court if its something the manufacturer wants to press.

getting a little off topic... so a simple "no you retard!" will do..

I prefer to avoid direct insults. If I can't do it subtlely, its not as satisfying. ;)

[ooPo]

Yeah, you retard!

[beatwho]

my thoughts,

I would have thought that anything you "released" that was based off you reverse-engineering/crack/hacking/exploiting the hardware, would be illegal? Isnt that what happened to the magic gate guy?

Although having said that, why are mod chips legal? As far as I know, you can do whatever you want with it for personal use, would that then make homemade UMDs legal? I cant find many cases on this kind of thing, although Im no lawyer. It sounds like even in legal eyes its still a very grey area when it comes to specifics.

[mharris]

Although having said that, why are mod chips legal?

It depends on where you are. In some places, they're not legal at all. In some places, like the USA, they're not officially illegal, but they're sort of shady -- you won't find them at Best Buy. And in some places they're perfectly legit, and creating backups of copyrighted software is OK, even when it circumvents some copy protection.

We tend to err on the side of caution here, and mentioning backups is a good way to get a thread locked. (Oops, I just mentioned them again... sorry about that). In any event, they have no relevance to homebrew development.

I would have thought that anything you "released" that was based off you reverse-engineering/crack/hacking/exploiting the hardware, would be illegal? Isnt that what happened to the magic gate guy?

I posted this a couple months ago, after reading an Ars Technica article that dealt with the DCMA and reverse-engineering. It's still a gray area in many ways, and like modchips, what's acceptable and what's protected will vary from country to country.

[kry.sys]

Correct. Other laws are far more likely to come into play in court if its something the manufacturer wants to press.

yea nevemind then... i guess that would make hacking microsoft legal.
thanks for the clearing up of nonsense.

why mod chips illegal reverse engineering bad? yadda yadda (quote didnt work right)

although sony and other asain companies are notorious for reverse engineering products then selling them under a slightly different use in other countries... use of modchips and reverse engineering products puts intelectual properties at risk. yes yes i know sony is a hypocrite when it comes to this subject but 5 wrongs dont make a half right and it wont stop sony from slapping people.

[Guest]

although sony and other asain companies are notorious for reverse engineering products then selling them under a slightly different use in other countries...

Any company can do legal reverse-engineering, and use what they learn in competing products so long as patents and copyrights are not violated.

However, unless you know of specific instances of Sony doing what you allege, it wouldn't be right to make such a statement. Yes, Asia is well known for counterfeits, and its not out of the realm of possibility that Sony has done so, but lets not make guilt by association without specific cases to point to. Besides, it happens within US and Europe too.

[Drakonite]

However, unless you know of specific instances of Sony doing what you allege, it wouldn't be right to make such a statement.

I think he was referring to 'The Betamax Case' like so many others do ;) IMO it doesn't quite fit here though.

[Neil Stevens]

Also, don't forget that while Sony once was one of the innovators pushing the limits of giving users freedom, Sony now owns big music and movie studios.

They switched sides, and it's a whole new game now.

[kry.sys]

However, unless you know of specific instances of Sony doing what you allege, it wouldn't be right to make such a statement.

I think he was referring to 'The Betamax Case' like so many others do ;) IMO it doesn't quite fit here though.

nononono not that ;) ... I was thinking trinitron actualy... and the lamp for curing ink on soda cans. i work with former sony engineers... they have lots of odd stories.

but anyways.. the point was that for people to think sony is a company that deserves to be ripped off doesnt make it right. and that just because you own a product doesnt mean you own the intelectual property associated with it.