November 9, 2005

Playstation 3 doesn’t play used games

Posted in General, news & rumors at 10:03 pm by playstation3

It’s amazing. Every day Sony has got a new surprise for us, joyful folks.

For bloggers’ sake!

What’s up this time? Let’s see…

�A device and method for protection of legitimate software against used software and counterfeit software in recording media… A specific title code is read, and if this title code has been registered, the main unit shifts to a normal operation. If the code has not been registered, verification software is initiated… If matching does not occur, the disk is processed as illegitimate software… Since only titles for which legitimate software has actually been purchased and which have been initially registered in the machine table can be used, resale (so-called used software purchase) after purchase by an end-user becomes practically impossible.�

So, seems like Playstation 3 won’t play used games at all to avoid piracy. Or to sell more? :)

Shame on You, Sony! Hehe. It doesn’t look fair. But it doesn’t look reliable, as well. Another rumor from Joistiq, our main source for funny news.

Sony would lose all of its clients if they can’t share games, it’s so obvious. Let’s be serious, please. We are talking about Playstation 3.

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. TJFan said,

    The fact is that you must choose a side based on what principles you support. You cannot denounce piracy and support used software sales and remain consistent because the principle at stake is the same, author control of IP post-publication.

    IP rightsholders make exactly as much profit from a used game sale as they do from you buying a bootleg copy or downloading the thing – which is to say, nothing – so why should it matter from Sony’s perspective? This is part of their war against piracy and it is fully in keeping with their expressed intentions.

    Personally, I haven’t ever understood consumers who argue vehemently against piracy as they are only diminishing the scope of their own natural rights. But if that’s your position, you must accept the consequences of logical extrapolation from that principle.

    ” It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.” – Thomas Jefferson

  2. Davis said,

    That is so F#$% UP ! What in the H311 Sony should”nt have did that S**t!

    Sony better change that sh** or knowone is gonna F***in Buy it That Pisses me OFF!

  3. Davis said,

    SONY SUCKS! Go Microsoft! and Nintendo!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: