Completely unrelated but I was browsing YouTube and this DF video got recommended to me. Is DF advocating for piracy now? AFAIK and I could be wrong but, compromising your console’s firmware violates the DMCA. It appears to be illegal and it got me to go back and look at some of their older videos. Apparently, they’ve done this for the switch as well? I know they’re “working” with the owner of a hacked console but, it’s kind of weird to me that they would be making this content.
Is console hacking illegal and is investigating console-mods advocating piracy?
- Thread starter BitByte
- Start date
I think they are trying to walk a thin line, they are not advocating piracy or hacking directly. They are saying, see what can be done if somebody takes the time, like person xyz. If that person can do it, why does not Sony bother? Which I assume the answer to is "will it be a worthwhile financial endevour"
Yes. It's putting emphasis on Sony that they could be doing this work and giving gamers a better experience. Without the hacked boxes, we wouldn't know what the hardware was truly capable off. It's an experiment, not advocating piracy. Although perhaps advocating cracking which one may or may not consider wrong depending on how one feels about the DMCA and how it's applied...
Circumventing a copy control device is a violation of the DMCA. But the DMCA is a law in the USA, while most of DF are not in the US. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know if the US has any jurisdiction here, even if they had a US console that they were modifying or using. Any violation would have to be addressed by the municipalities they live in, and that assumes they are in places that signed the WIPO treaties and have implemented laws that enforce those agreements as aggressively as the DMCA does.
Last edited:
I guess I can see that but most of the big media bodies who have publisher/developer relations steer well clear of this topic. DF is not a small tech tube channel so it's a bit weird to see them producing content drawing attention to console cracking, etc. We know neither Sony nor Nintendo are fond of it anyway. I mean I guess it's an interesting academic exercise but in the end, it's output is not beneficial to the customer. Of what good is that knowledge if it doesn't lead to actual change? In the video, DriveClub is highlighted but, the studio is closed and it will not be patched. In fact, the game was delisted due to licensing issues.
Absolutely unnecessary yet unsurprisingly expected.Of course we are
A great deal covered at DF or here or in discussion doesn't have any real-world implications. DF hasn't a mandate to only create content for the betterment of society.
And if we're lucky (not gonna happen) people will rant and rage until Sony provides better BC options now that we know they are capable. But even if not, it is indeed an academic exercise and a jolly interesting one, letting us gauge the impact of PS5's hardware on PS4 games more accurately than relying on the official ports.Silent_Buddha
Legend
Keep in mind that violating the written word of the DMCA does not necessarily constitute piracy.
Piracy is the act of distributing counterfeit goods (like illegally copied software). It does not matter if it is for profit or not. The key here is distribution (selling, giving away, sharing, etc.).
In the US this is a key distinction as if you are the owner of a piece of copyable media (music, video, books, magazines, games, software, etc.) then by law you are allowed to make a copy of it for personal use. In effect people within the US are allowed to make a "backup" copy of something they own.
So, keep those in mind. Distribution versus personal use of something a consumer already owns.
The DMCA is written with broad strokes, but when it comes to enforcement, no-one will ever be prosecuted for circumventing the copy protection mechanisms on a device they own if it is solely for the purposes of making a personal copy/backup of a piece of software or to run a legally owned piece of software. If someone did bring a case against someone doing that for personal use, that would then likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court and the law would likely be struck down as being too broad and infringing on rights given to the individual within the US. IE - no corporation is going to take that risk that the DMCA would be ruled invalid as currently written.
However, if said person were to circumvent the copy protection mechanisms and then "share" those copies or sell them, IE - distribute those copies, then that person becomes fair game and companies will go after them if said companies feel that it is worth time, money and effort. Basically if someone shares a copy they made with their mother, Sony likely isn't going to go after them but if they share them on a torrenting site, Sony is likely to at least send a cease and desist and potentially follow up if they don't stop.
So, was DF pirating? No. At least I am assuming they used either a legal copy of a game they own or they made a legal backup of said game.
So, did DF violate the DMCA as written? Yes. Is it against the law? Technically yes (DMCA as written) and technically no (consumer right to backup media in the US). If it went to court it would likely be ruled as not against the law and that the DMCA itself is written to broadly and would be struck down, hence a case will never be brought for something like this.
Now, if they started selling or giving away consoles that were pre-hacked, that's where it enters the gray area of whether that is unlawful or not with some indications that the courts might side with the manufacturer. Although precedent (VHS machines capable of circumventing copy protection were sold openly in the US in major retailers) would imply that if it went all the way to the Supreme Court it would be fine unless it could be shown that said machine was made and distributed in order to facilitate the distribution of counterfeit goods (like illegally copied software/games).
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
$9.99
Anyone who is cheering on the eventual demise of Gamestop should remember their contribution to video game preservation, even if it was done for self serving purposes.
That's pre-owned. Pubs/devs see nothing of that.
That's how it works when you own something. I just sold a car and didn't pay Ford a dime either.
arandomguy
Regular
I believe he is trying to point out that the business impact to the publisher/developer in the case of piracy vs. buying 2nd hand is effectively the same. They don't see money either way.
I guess in the case of an out of print game being pirated the people being negatively impacted financially would be secondary sellers (eg. Gamestop) if people choose to pirate instead of buying second hand copies.
Albeit, just to pre-empt this potential discussion, we could go down the rabbit hole of whether or not resell value of a game indirectly affects the amount of initial purchases due to cost recouping. It's certainly a significant factor for say cars.
The content industry (music, games, software) doesn't want you to "own" anything. According to them you didn't buy a copy of the content, you merely bought a copy of a license to enjoy the content in some limited capacity as dictated by them.
