Australian Federal Court Finds Mod Chips Not Illegal 174
Friendless writes "In contrast to the story earlier this week about the Ottawa man who was jailed for selling and installing mod chips, the the Australian ABC reports that the Australian Federal Court has found that installing mod chips is not illegal, because Sony failed to prove that a copyright protection measure was installed in the PlayStation in the first place. Here is the full judgement."
Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1, Troll)
Not use copied games though. And there is NO OTHER reason why you would want to chip your PS, before everyone brings out the standard 'well why don't we ban guns / crowbars etc etc.' argument.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1, Interesting)
Tough poo to Sony. Region coding is a restraint of trade, so Sony shouldn't be able to go crying to a court about it.
Just what exactly is wrong with their PS that they get so scratched?
Some people do, yes. Its not the PS2 that scratches them, its kids and careless owners who don't look after them and leave their disks lying around in a heap on their bedroom floor etc. that scratches them.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2, Funny)
But being an anal freak is not in itself illegal yet.
There is a massive difference between "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games" and "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games unless you have a personality that I will sneer at".
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Time for another useless fact: If every person on Earth owned 1000 Playstations, and had modded every one, and the quoted statement was true, then about 0,6 Playstations would have been modded using this reasoning.
You're welcome
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
1) thats the sort of loosers insult I would have used in the school playground when I was 12
2) So tough noogies to you.
I'm off home now. Sweet dreams, puff.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
You obviously don't have any younger siblings.
Bork!
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that Sony may not like you playing import games doesn't mean it's any less of a fair use of the mod chip. Who cares what Sony says - all that matters is the law (then again, in this day and age the lines are becoming blurrier
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
The DMCA is a bad law no matter how we look at it.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:3, Informative)
basically, playstation 2 has a *huge* problem with the laser unit actually scratching the disc (the evil circular scratches too, not the easy-to-fix straight ones), especially if you stand up the unit. other problems involve the laser unit becoming "decalibrated" and unable to read discs until fixed, but that doesnt cause scratches.
after buying gran turismo 3 for the second time, i have started making backups of all of my games and using those instead of my originals as it seems that sony has somehow gotten away with engineering a product that will eventually destroy your games. maybe that last part isnt true, but im a paranoid freak about these things.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:2)
Yes, some people do. But even if nobody did, so what? The fact that someone could use a modded PS to play copied games (thus committing a crime) is actually irrelevant to the argument. Yes, modding a PS or PS2 provides you with the ability to play "pirated" games. So what? Studying martial arts provides you with the ability to kill someone with your bare hands. Studying martial arts is not a crime. Killing someone with your bare hands is.
Illegal copying of games is, well, illegal. Doing something that provides the ability to commit a crime is not, or at least should not be, a crime. Actually committing the crime, is a crime. How hard is this for people to understand? There are legitimate uses for mod chips. If people use their mod chips to commit a crime, then punish them for committing that crime. But don't punish people for doing something that could allow them to commit a crime.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Why the hell do I have to buy a Japanese PS2 just to play a japanese game??
I should be able to play all PS2 games on one machine. If I can't, I am going to try to hack it, because I'm not spending another few hundred bucks on a 2nd console.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you gain a mod chip for a PS it generally does three things for you:
1) Allows you to play non-'original' disks. (A semi-dodgy area, fair use says a backup is permitted)
2) Allows you to play discs from other regions (No illegality here.)
3) Allows you to play DVDs from other regions. (Perfectly legal)
One of the selling points on a PS2 is that it plays DVDs, and hence you can factor in that cost of a DVD player when buying a PS2, and as pretty much ANYBODY in a country that does not fall into region 1 knows DVDs are somewhat more expensive there... Not mentioned the staggered release dates, region 1, then 6 months later the rest of the world.
Games are also 'zoned' in a similar manner, brought out eariler, different pricing, and in fact different games (well features I guess)..
Why companies playing in a global market should attempt to segment, purely for the purpose of increasing profit... If you import DVDs from the states to the UK you still pay the VAT, and hence the tax arguement doesn't really cut it with me. Some items really are value added for the zones, but so far I've only noticed this on cars, not Computer related items.
And so to sum this up, there are perfectly legal and legitimate reasons for installing / purchasing a mod chip. I'm not saying that everyone has these goals in mind when they buy or sell them, but I am saying that to tar everyone with the same brush is a little harsh, and wrong.
To reply to the quote in the parent: This was totally unrelated to the first sale principle, it was the selling of mod-chips (oh and those copied games). Once you have bought the hardware there is nothing illegal about altering it. Sure the DMCA may come into force if you circumvent copy-protection, BUT I'm not sure if that applies if you don't distribute the 'crack'. At least nobody will know since there will be no publicity.. If you buy a ps2, crush it and use it as a doorstop, you can, and there is NOTHING Sony can do about it, even if you publish it, hell that probably violates the DMCA since the copy-protection is circumvented... Hmm I wonder what happens to scrapped machines??
Sony (and Sega, MS, etc) want to stop this because traditionally Europeans (and other areas, sorry about the view - I'm from Europe) will tolerate much higher pricing than their American counterparts, thus better profit margins..
Z.
P.S. I believe PS2 Games are zoned, although I'm not 100% sure.
Copyright laws vary by region (Score:2)
If you import DVDs from the states to the UK you still pay the VAT, and hence the tax arguement doesn't really cut it with me.
If Disney sells copies of Return to Never Land in the United States, Disney pays royalties only to the DVD Forum, MPEG LA, and Dolby for use of the patents involved in DVD coding. If, on the other hand, Disney sells copies of that movie in the United Kingdom, Disney must pay additional royalties to Great Ormond Street Hospital, owner of the copyright on James M. Barrie's Peter Pan in the United Kingdom. (Read More... [wikipedia.com])
Backup and homebrew (Score:2)
Not use copied games though.
I don't know about the laws of Australia, but here in the United States, it isn't copyright infringement to make a legitimate backup copy of a computer program if you own a genuine copy.
And there is NO OTHER reason why you would want to chip your PS
Ever heard of homebrew software development? The only part of the PS2 that the Linux Kit doesn't grant you access to is the I/O subsystem, which is apparently similar to a PS1. Perhaps once somebody figures out the PS1, he or she might be able to 1) write clustering software for a network of PS1 consoles, or 2) rewrite PS2 Linux's hypervisor (which runs on its I/O processor) and make a *real* linux port.
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
This will undoubtably apply to palladium hardware too then. I wish
The trouble is that just because something is sensible or correct, doesn't make it legal.
Here is the perfect example - mod chips are legal in one country, and illegal in another. A bit like EULA's in Europe vs USA.
You can't predict the law based on what seems sensible.
Michael
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
Joost
Re:Why should it matter? (Score:1)
What if someone installed the mod-chip so that they can play games released in other countries? Is bypassing regional encoding illegal? That's basically what everyone *snicker* uses their mod-chip for.
And in other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
The story about the guy convicted in Ottawa has a very misleading title. He was convicted because he was selling 400+ varieties of burned Playstation games. He happened to be a mod chip seller and installer as well because such things go hand in hand. If he was doing only mod chips, the authorities would probably have passed him by. But selling illegally duplicated software for profit ($30k gross in his case) is another matter entirely and will get you some legal penalties.
Not as different as you might think. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the evidence wasn't there. Maybe this Australian is just better at covering his tracks, or maybe Sony just had the wrong guy.
It is called civil disobedience (Score:4, Insightful)
If enough people are arrested for outrageously stupid reasons, public awareness of what is happening will be raised. I remember telling a non-technical friend of mine, who is a pilot for a major airline and served in the airforce (and saw combat in Yugoslavia), about the arrest of Dmitry and he was outraged. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen him as angry as he was that day. He took that injustice very personally, as do most people who believe in the ideals of democracy and not the rule of corporate oligarchs, cartels, and monopolists.
The more lay people that are made aware of these injustices the better, and this guy is going a long way toward accomplishing this. The excesses of copyright have only succeeded these last decades because the awareness of what has happened (chronic copyright extentions, and now fundamental changes in its nature from a civil to a criminal law, and from a largely commercial regulation to a profoundly invasive personal one) has been absent. Copyright law, in its current form, will likely not withstand public scruitiny very well, which is something that would be good for every one of us (returning it back to its pre-1970 duration, if not repealing the notion altogether and replacing it with a gentler, non-monopolistic regime for compensating authors and artists, but that is a discussion for another day).
Raising public awareness of these issues is probably one of the most important things we can be doing, and if we as technically knowledgable people do not do so, no one will. This guy should be applauded for stepping up to the plate and putting his personal liberty on the line for the greater public good.
If we had more people willing to do this sort of thing when the despots seize personal liberty after personal liberty we would live in a much better world. He is a man who clearly feels strongly enough about software freedom to risk jail time, up to 5 years, which is a hell of a lot more grave than the $17,000 fine mentioned in the article (I wonder why they played that down. That makes his actions even more impressive).
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:4, Interesting)
An Example,
Smoking Pot in your house is evading the law.
Smoking Pot at the police station where they can see you is civil disobedience.
In the first case it's apparant that you simply refuse to obey a law because you don't feel like it. Big deal, a bank robber does the same thing. The second case shows that you're disobeying the law as a protest against a law that you consider to be unjust.
Before anyone attempts to question if anyone would actually do the second act, I have been arrested for doing this as part of a protest against Marijunia laws.
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:2)
Unjust laws are unjust. We rightfully honor those who publically challenge unjust laws. But this does not imply that we should disrespect those who refuse to obey them privately. Perhaps it's not the choice that we would consider sensible. Perhaps we consider it too dangerous. But if a law is unjust, there is nothing inherrently wrong with breaking it.
OTOH, game theory indicates that some kinds of laws are agreements in how the game should be played. In these cases, it may be important to play by the rules, even if you don't agree with them. But in these situations, it is because you achieve a significant advantage over other players if you do not, so if you covertly break the rules, then the game ceases to be a fair game. This is the justification for auditors. And the reason that the stock market reacted so to the news.
P.S.: Do you think that the stock market is sane? I don't find myself reassured at all by the "tough new laws", when the old laws aren't being enforced against the insiders. This isn't the first time, e.g., that Anderson has been involved in this kind of a scandal -- though it may have been 30 years since the last one ot this size. And I have heard reports that Enron practiced their techniques in South America before importing them into the U.S.
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:3, Insightful)
In most cases it is better to use words to show disapproval of an unjust law. I resorted to actions in the case of the old Marijunia laws because it was possible to be charged with a felony for having a single joint, and the law was being unfairly enforced with upper class white kids usually being charged with a misdemeanor while lower class white kids, minorities or "troublemakers" were charged with a felony. In this case people's lives were being adversaly affected for a minor offense.
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:3, Funny)
Arrest me officer? But I was just making a political statement!!!
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:2)
"Perhaps you`re in the wrong country? Where are you - the states?"
Don't just ask where, ask when too. It was in the USA in 1976. The attention from protests like the one I took part in helped with the effort to decriminalize simple pocession of pot.
Is it just me... (Score:1, Offtopic)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=36633&c
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:2)
How many is enough? Something like 60% of the people in the US prison system are there because of relatively minor drug related offenses.. they still haven't really convinced anyone that the system should be changed.
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It is called civil disobedience (Score:1)
Correct Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correct Link (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Correct Link (Score:2)
What a set of cajones on this cat! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a set of cajones on this cat! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What a set of cajones on this cat! (Score:2, Funny)
And this guy's name was Eddy....
The Ottawa case (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Ottawa case (Score:1)
Re:The Ottawa case (Score:2)
Re:The Ottawa case (Score:2, Insightful)
> Sony launched legal proceedings against a Sydney man, Eddy Stevens, for allegedly selling pirated games and also providing and installing modification chips.
He was selling pirated games as well, so it is a valid analogy.
Re:The Ottawa case (Score:2)
except its not if you understand the difference between civil and criminal actions.
The guy in Australia sold copied games and mod chips because instead of tipping off the authorities, sony decided to sue him.. The guy in canada got arrested by the police and undoubtably had to spend a small amount of time in jail awaiting trial and such.
Two things (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, the story about the Ottowa man who was jailed for "selling modchips" was actually jailed because he had 417 pirated games that he was selling to customers. Christ, people, read more than the headline next time!
Finally, I don't see how it could possibly be illegal to modchip a Playstation. I bought a piece of hardware (PSX). I bought another piece of hardware (modchip). When I buy them, I buy the rights to modify them in whatever way I want. There is no EULA on hardware. There is no contract that says "I will not modify this piece of hardware." What I do with my toaster/PSX on my own time is my own business. Is this one of those stupid "DMCA illegalities" that we keep running into?
Re:Two things (Score:2, Informative)
As quoted from the story:
> Sony launched legal proceedings against a Sydney man, Eddy Stevens, for allegedly selling pirated games and also providing and installing modification chips.
Try following your own advise first.
Yes (Score:4, Informative)
The law is convoluted, badly written, and in practice self-contradictory. But the net effect may be that your mod chip could get you in trouble.
The media guys know it's a shaky defense; that's why they're not rushing to test its limits right away. Rather than sic the feds on everyone (as they certainly could), they're going for what we like to call a chilling effect; they want practices to change as people are _afraid_ of prosecution, and they want the law to age a bit. Recent laws always look like potential victims to a high court, so the theory goes. But once its 10 years, 20 years old, it starts to take on a certain "legitimacy."
Don't ask me. I only live here.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Informative)
The Australian Court could not agree that the use control measures where "Technological Protection Measures" that protect the copyrighted work. The relevent part of the decision is: He's basically saying that when you bought the game, you bought the right to play the game, and that technological measures that inhibit this protect something other than the copyright. Said differently, (my words), the technological measures that were circumvented in the Playstation were only the "use controls" and not any of the "access controls".
This is a very well reasoned argument that I hope US courts will adopt. If a control is a mix of use control and access control, then you may legally circumvent the use control if you don't circumvent the access control.
Under this reasoning, a "non-licenced" DVD player that didn't expose the decrypted movie for copying would be legal, because the part of the CSS scheme that attempts to assure you use a licenced player only is not a TPM under the definition in the DMCA, since it doesn't protect the work, but rather the way the work is used.
Absolutely (Score:2)
Which was the idea when the law was written, but still.
Thank you,
-David
Re:Absolutely (Score:2)
For example, one egregious error was the 2nd Circuit thinking that the act of installation and running the program is not important in determining whether publishing source code is "non-speech conduct" that results in the harms Congress was trying to prevent. They sort of said it doesn't really matter who does what.
Re:Yes (Score:2)
The last one it cannot do. For the simple reason that passing a law abridging freedom of speach is something the US Constitution explicitally denys the US Congress the power to do. Problem is there is a loophole in the US legislative process which allows constitutional restrictions to be circumvented.
More than two things (Score:1)
Re:Two things (Score:5, Informative)
so please let's all get this straight. They can put Whatever they want on the box, in the box, whever.. unless I have to agree to something before they will sell it to me it's not valid here in the states (ON HARDWARE, for some reason the idiots that run this country and are our judges think that software should be different)
so as wind_Walker says.. It's not illegal to chip a playstation (It doesnt have any BIOS code in it it only interrupts a data stream and inserts the correct magic number) and I can make my playstation the control system of a nuclear missle if I want to and Sony cant do a damned thing about it other than try and outspend me in a frivioulous lawsuit. (and they can outspend everyone... they cant compete with someone smart enough to make the case really public and smear sony hard in the press.)
Besides... (Score:1)
Nowhere does it say "you will go to jail if you break the seal over this screw". It usually says "Breaking the seal over this screw will void your warrentee".
If you want your warrentee service, dont touch the hardware. If you dont care - then there isnt anything stopping you from modding.
Now: There is such thing as an illegal modifiaction to hardware. You buy a car you can do almost anything you want to it. Add better intakes, add a turbocharger, etc. It is illegal, however, in most places to replace your muffler with a "Fart Pipe" so that it makes as much noise as possible. Doing that will get you fined.
We know its illegal (in most places) to add fart pipes to your car because its a law, and its on the books.
So where do we draw the line? Is there going to be a law written up that says "Adding a chip to a playstation is illegal?"
Re:Besides... (Score:2, Funny)
And technically, you can add a "fart pipe" if you want. You just can't operate the vehicle if that would mean you would violate a noise ordinance. It's not the modification that gets the fine, it's the violation of the noise ordinance.
Same thing with the chip. You can install it. you can use it for legitimate purposes (backups, imports) you just can't play pirated stiff with it.
Re:Besides... (Score:2)
This is a very good point. The result of the modification is illegal. But the modification itself is not. Nobody can stop you from putting the fart pipe on your car. Just dont drive it on public roads - you violate a noise ordinance, thus breaking the law.
The courts shouldnt be able to make it illegal to put mod chips in game consoles because it can be used to do illegal things.
Im not quite sure this ruling is actually stating that mod chips are illegal - since the guy was essentially conviced for selling pirated games. Thats illegal any way you slice it.
Re:Besides... (Score:2)
That only affects a manufacturers warrentee. Which in most parts of the world is in addition to a whole host of statutory obligations of retailers. If the retailer were to make the mod then the whatever had generally better still work.
Now: There is such thing as an illegal modifiaction to hardware. You buy a car you can do almost anything you want to it. Add better intakes, add a turbocharger, etc. It is illegal, however, in most places to replace your muffler with a "Fart Pipe" so that it makes as much noise as possible. Doing that will get you fined.
Making such a mod isn't illegal. It's more that a vehicle so modified is no longer "street legal". So you can't drive it on public roads.
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Obviously these things are a little hazy. The courts have to rely upon what sort of things are "usual". If you buy a car and there's no air conditioner (and no mention of one), you can't complain. If you buy a car and there's no engine, you can sue.
Software is too new for the "common" understanding to have settled down yet. Bleh.
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Yes, but all contract law centers around a "meeting of the minds":
Meeting of the minds
The first step in creating a contract is making sure that both parties are talking about the same deal, so that when they subsequently agree to enter into the contract they are both agreeing to the same thing. Seems obvious, right? Until you realize that the "vintage red car" you planned on buying from your brother-in-law isn't the Ferrari, it's his Pinto. Take the time to communicate your understanding of the deal to the other party, and listen carefully when he or she talks back.
(From dummies.com [dummies.com])
What EULAs, contracts on boxes, etc. fail to do is ensure this meeting of the minds. If I walk into a store and pay for something, I assume that all I'm doing is paying for what's in the box, not agreeing to anything else. When more extensive considerations are involved, there's a contract stating them fully. EULAs et al violate this fundamental principle by trying to postpone the meeting of minds until after the contract has been agreed to. Given that the rest of human endeavor has managed to avoid having to do that, I see no reason to accept this for software. If you want software to work differently, present the contract up front, and don't allow me to buy it without full agreement.
And if you find that requirement of having a contract is too burdensome, tough noogies! Having it work otherwise is too burdensome on everyone else.
As always, IANAL, but I *am* a professional, proprietary content developer.
Re:Two things (Score:2)
UK: Sony v. Channel (Score:1)
Sony sued someone who was selling them, and won. This was a civil action, so it wasn't "illegal", but the law is certainly against modchips.
D'oh (Score:1, Offtopic)
Just think about it in the same way you think about the Naked Gun quote: "I can sum that up in three words: Quinton Hapsburg."
Re:Correction. (Score:2)
Although some moron moderator marked this as offtopic, it isn't. The statement that the Ottowa man was jailed came from the Slashdot headline of the story about it -- it isn't true, and didn't come from the article. (This was pointed out many times in the discussion that followed -- but obviously the editors don't read articles or messages.) The Ottowa man wasn't jailed; he was fined and given a year of probation.
Download yer games here (Score:3, Informative)
http://superia.iwarp.com [iwarp.com]
But don't bother going there, unless you want to "mod" or "chip" a certain popular body part.
Hollow victory, and one confused judge! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the very bottom of the article:
<snip>
165 In view of the failure of the applicants to establish that the copyright work was protected by a technological protection measure, it is not necessary for me to determine whether the devices installed by Mr Stevens in the PlayStation consoles were circumvention devices.
166 In an affidavit read on the last day of the hearing, Mr Nabarro expressed the opinion that the chips had no purpose other than overriding the anti-piracy devices of the applicants. The price Mr Bannon paid for being permitted to read the affidavit at such a late stage (Mr Nabarro being already on his way to the airport) was that he conceded that Mr Nabarro's evidence was not literally true. In particular, Mr Bannon accepted that the installation of the chip enabled the owner of the console also to play a back-up copy of the PlayStation game which lacked the access code.
167 On the evidence, I would have held that the chips installed by Mr Stevens had only a limited commercially significant use other than circumventing or facilitating the circumvention of the access code. Thus, if the access code had been a "technological protection measure", the chips would have been circumvention devices. I would also have found that Mr Stevens sold or promoted (through advertisements in the Trading Post) the circumvention devices and that he knew that the devices would be used to circumvent or facilitate the circumvention of a technological protection measure.
</snip>
(Emphasis added)
So despite the fact that the judge thought it unnecessary to determine whether the mod chips were a "circumvention device", he goes ahead and expresses the opinion that they blatantly are, and he would have prefered to rule in the opposite direction.
At least it sets some kind of lower threshold on what can be considered a "technological protection measure", thus raising the bar slightly higher for companies trying to stifle fair use of their products. But in the end, the wrong law was passed, and the wrong law is still on the statute books. So how great this ruling really is, I don't know.
And it was nice to see the old chestnut of "loading into RAM is theft" re-appearing; I thought that one was already put to rest for good!
You are misinterpreting these paragraphs (Score:5, Informative)
The main points of the case are as follows:
1) The access code does not protect the copyrighted work from being copied, 2) the access code merely causes the copied work to be unplayable, 3) the mod chip makes the copied work playable, and 4) the key here is that the work is already copied, regardless of the presence of the mod chip.
Even further, the text also supports the notion that even if the access code WERE a technological protection measure, the mod chip may still not have been considered a circumvention device because the protection measure would have also prevented the legal playing of American games and backup copies.
Sony was in fact two hurdles away from winning this case. I don't think this lowers the hurdle on what can be considered "technological protection measures" Rather, it clarifies (according to Australian law, unless they have an appeal process from this level) that mod chips are legal because they are not circumventing a protection device.
Clearly Sony must take additional steps to protect their games.
Re:You are misinterpreting these paragraphs (Score:1)
Re:You are misinterpreting these paragraphs (Score:2)
For their next title I suggest they try locking it in a safe. I bet that would eliminate $millions in piracy losses.
-
Re:Hollow victory, and one confused judge! (Score:2)
There is no obligation on the part of the seller to enable you to make use of "fair use". That's your problem. And the DMCA is an attempt to make it illegal for you to solve it, i.e., it makes the means that are required to achieve a legal end, themselves illegal.
This would be silly, if it weren't underhanded, malicious, spiteful, viscious, and despicable.
Probably the only proper response is to refuse to do business with companies that use such devices, to refuse to vote for candidates that support such laws (even if both, or even all, do). And to try to create alternatives where you have interest. Legal challenges might also be useful, but I wouldn't know. Political awareness campaigns might be useful, but when both major candidates support vileness, it's not very effective. (I live in California, and both parties are captives of Hollywood.)
Another useful approach to the more general problem would be the occasionally mentioned GPL
P.S.: Internal evidence indicates that Lobsters takes place in 2012. Strikes me as a bit soon. But then the entire work averages extremely optomistic.
How to Speak Austrailian. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to Speak Austrailian [sic] (Score:2)
Not the final word on the matter though (Score:2, Informative)
Also our High Court (our highest court of appeal) has the nifty habit of disagreeing with lower courts (as most high courts do
NOT convicted for selling mod chips! (Score:1)
Re:NOT convicted for selling mod chips! (Score:2)
It's true, if you want to be adventurous about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Strictly speaking, I tend to agree with the Australians; security on the consoles (and proposed security in other systems) is far from being "primarily" a tool to prevent theft. It has many other purposes, stated and unstated.
We often call fair use a victim of the media industry's war on customers (or perhaps a war on civil liberties, or on sane contract and criminal law). Region coding aside, one thing in particular that frequently gets swept away in the "copy control" race is the notion of backups.
Yes, just simple backups. I'm in the habit of keeping things backed up when I can, and you should be too. Of course, don't take my word for it. You'll be a believer after you lose your first important batch of data, just like I did.
The media guys just want the backup issue to go away. They ignore it at every opportunity, and they hope you will too. But why can't we make backup copies of our CDs, DVDs, and, yes, playstation (etc etc) games? They get scratched, they wear out... even if you buy into the most apocalyptic notions about time shifting and space shifting, backups are still legit. And not only us, why can't _libraries_ and _rental places_ make backups? 100x as important for them as for us; they get a lot of wear and tear.
The "security" systems, as exemplified by the PS2 and other consoles aren't just for preventing theft. They're for preventing backups. You damage "your" property? Buy another copy. But is that legitimate?
This debate is filled with similar examples. Where's the "security" in region coding? It's entirely arbitrary! And the list goes on.
You see, there's a continuous conflict here, between big media's power grab, and fair use (making backups, quoting, time shifting, space shifting, etc), basic freedoms (like privacy, for DRM systems which "happen" to report what you do back to HQ), and elementary contract law (parties explicitly agree, implied contracts, no "surprising" fine print conditions, you own what you buy, etc - actually comes pretty close to the rule of least astonishment).
They want to abolish fair use altogether (along with getting special status for contract law and enforcement, etc) - that's the only way they can try to stop all theft. While they're at it, they're going to get fringe benefits that far outweight the value of their stated goal - control over all media devices? Carte blanche to dictate any kind of terms they want whenever they sell you anything? The ability to asses and collect taxes? Yet right now all the pieces aren't in place yet, and if you have to rule on the law, you still have the option to look objectively at the facts and conclude that mod chips and other game copying tools have legitimate uses and must be legal. I don't even think it's a stretch.
Until they explicitly eliminate fair use at the legislative level (which they might - who knows! anything's possible, apparently), that's always a possibility. Of course, controlling the courts isn't impossible either, perhaps... One thing the last few years should have taught us is that when it comes to corrupting influences in politics, politicians have a unique appreciation for the power of those who control the media.
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
The "security" systems, as exemplified by the PS2 and other consoles aren't just for preventing theft. They're for preventing backups. You damage "your" property? Buy another copy. But is that legitimate?
I'd say it is. If I damage my car, I have to buy a new one, no backups there. If I damage my TV, oops, better get over to Circuit City. The difference here (and it's the only difference) is that with data (in general) it is _possible_ to make perfect backups at low cost. In most "real world" situations it is not possible, physical objects cannot usually be cloned. So data backups are really the special case. What is happening here is that Sony are saying, well sorry, but we're going to do our best to prevent you being able to make that backup, we're making our product more like a regular "thing". I can bet you that if I went up to someone in the street and said, if you lost your copy of a CD, or PS2 game, or if your child snapped the disc in half, should you be entitled to a free new one? They'd say no, you'd have to buy the replacement, just the same as if that child broke your cellphone, or you lost your umbrella. What's the solution? Well, the same as for any other normal posession, if you value it, insure it. That's the meatspace version of backups
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2, Interesting)
For me to accept this, they must stop selling a "license to use" the software, and just charge for the media. As it is, the media charge is a tiny component of the total price, most of which is the software license.
A failure of the media does not invalidate that license to use the software.
And your car analogy. I get my car fixed when it is broken... I even get the tires fixed. You can fix, to some extent, analogue audio and video tape if the damage is minor enough. (You'll lose a few frames around the splice, but hey, you can still watch the movie or listen to the album.)
But software is different from hardware. It's about the ideas, not the device containing them--that's why it is called software.
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:3, Insightful)
If I break my disk I should have to buy a new one? I'll accept that IF the cost is for the new disk, and not for the game that I already paid for. That is I send a broken disk to Sony with a check for $1.00 ($0.30 for the disk, and $0.70 for postage, both of which are high estimates) and 6 weeks latter I get a new disk in the mail. Oh, and this offer is good forever, 40 years from now when I get out my old playstation for nostalgias sake and discover the disk has suffered bit-rot I expect they will still send me a copy. (price adjusted for inflation if nessicary, but still dirt cheap)
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
If I leave a banana sitting around for 40 years, then for nostalgia's sake decide to eat it, only to discover that it suffered from rot-rot, should I expect the Chaquita company to send me a replacement banana?
Nobody ever promised you that your games are indestructable. Take care of your stuff, dude.
Now, to be fair, there's still a question as to what your money is going toward - owning a copy of the game on a medium, or purchasing the right to *play* the game. The EULA seems to want to have it both ways, or rather, niether way.
GMFTatsujin
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
Chevy provides me the means to fix my car for the cost of parts, and I often buy aftermarket parts so they don't even make the money. I have already done that in fact. Even if chevy didn't provide the parts, with the right tools I can make a copy. (Unfortunatly computers I cannot copy, but they rarely break, compared to the mechanical parts I can copy). I expect I can keep my current car running for 30 years if I want to repair it. Eventially I will get sick of it, or the cost of parts will be more than it is worth, but I could keep it. You might argue that Chevy makes a profit on parts, and I wouldn't mind Sony mkaing a profit on replacement disks. (ie $5 for a replacement would be reasonable, $50 is not)
Bananas are a consumable, they have an expiration date. With a game, it appears that you own if forever, but in fact you don't. Try this: go to WalMart, and buy a new copy of Ballblazer cartrage for an Atari 8bit system (and excellent game, I highly recomend it). While your at it pick me up a copy of MULE. At one time I could do that. Now you will be hard pressed to find a legal copy of either game. In 40 years you can get a new banana. You completely failed to address how I can keep games that I love for 40 years. I consider myself luck to keep a CD for 5 years, and I try to take good care of them, but accidents happen. I have started burning copies of all CDs in desperation. Even if I'm willing to pay full price, I can't.
So really I had two points. Not just that I shouldn't have to pay full price for something I own, but also that I should be able to fix it even after the game/software isn't worth putting on shelves anymore.
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
Very interesting (Score:3, Funny)
There are many reasons for taking this point of view on the matter. Others are at this moment elsewhere on this topic making far more detailed arguments to the point than I care to here. But I will leave you with an example.
In 100 years, after Sony is long bankrupt and we're all long dead, the only way we will see a lot of what's been copy-protected today is from the "pirates" who broke the protection and allowed it to be stored in general purpose, redundant media.
I often chuckle at the crackers, and their demos and intros that I see today, because in generations to come, we may see their work enshrined in the nations libraries and museums...
Re:It's true, if you want to be adventurous about (Score:2)
For the time being.
But in a few decades it will be possible to clone physical objects for very little cost. And again, just like software, it'll be the WORK that goes into the product that is the real cost, not the media itself.
So yeah, you'll eventually be able to make a perfect "backup" of your car or your TV (via non-destructive molecular scanning). Just as with software though, you can either pay your fair/unfair share for the WORK that went into the design of the products, or you can "steal" its blueprint, or you can choose open-source hardware designs, (or you can wait for non-IP-owning, non-rent-paying, non-food-consuming, non-social-climbing slave AI to do the grunt work of development).
--
On the other side of the issue... (Score:5, Informative)
The guy in Canada was mostly burned for selling the pirated games, not for installing the mod chips. It just looks better in an article to emphasize the mod chip aspect. We have no laws against modding equipment, even if it breaks copyright. Hell, if you can find a good Canadian server that will let it on, you can have DeCSS online up here.
The Big Lie (Score:5, Insightful)
A long time ago, when I was innocent and mostly unaware of DMCA, I got my PSX modchipped. This was one of the earliest mod chips (this becomes important later in the story). I was in Virginia working for my cousins software company (a defense contractor) and they had this cool video game store there that sold a lot of imported games. Well, they had just gotten in Samurai Spirits 1 & 2 for the Playstation. I bought it and brought it home, and tried to use the "swap method" to play it. (The swap method is where you prop the Playstation open while keeping the closed button under the lid pressed down. You then put an American game in your Playstation, and after it starts to boot swap it with an import.)
Well, this was a failure, so (long story short) I mailed my Playstation to a friend of mine and had him install a modchip. I finally got my Playstation back and spent many happy hours playing Samurai Spirits.
Well, a while later Sony got Capcom to tweak their software so it wouldn't work in modded Playstations. I found this out after buying two games. The first was Rockman III, a very expensive game that I can only play using Bleem! (I'm unwilling to rechip my Playstation with a newer "stealth chip" and I certainly won't ever buy another one.) The second was the American version of Dino Crisis! I solved that problem by getting my friend to ship me a patched CD-R of Dino Crisis, which worked fine in my modded Playstation.
So, essentially, Sony had convinced Capcom to tweak their software so that legitimate copies of their software wouldn't run on my chipped Playstation, but "pirate" games would work fine.
After this experience, I decided Sony was run by the Devil incarnate, something which was only confirmed by their later behavior.
My hardware, my schmardware (Score:2, Insightful)
Lots of posters have waved their arms about with "it's my hardware, I can modify it however I please" - besides being completely beside the point of the article, is plain simplistic.
In most parts of the world, I can't re-arrange petrol (sorry, "gas"), glass bottles, torn rags and a box of matches into makeshift grenades and stack them in my garage, because posession of such weapons is illegal.
I can't even let junk pile up in my garden in case rats infest my place, and threaten my neighbours' comfortable enjoyment of their own property.
If you follow that through, it's easier to explain how I can't alter a Playstation in order to allow me to deprive Sony of money, if that's what I end up doing with it.
It's all about balancing the rights of others with selfish acts (I use the word non-perjoratively). That's why we have laws in the first place!!
disclaimer: Down with Sony, anyway, I say.
Balance of interestsRe:My hardware, my schmardware (Score:2)
Try this link. (Score:1)
Isn't it Ironic? (Score:3, Insightful)
Modchips (Score:3, Insightful)
Ya ya ya. This might be true for 95% of the time, but the idea that the modchip itself should be illegal is wrong. There are other legal uses for a mod chip (such as to play valid copies, or even so you can run your own games/programs on it).
What if they decided to implement this type of method in PCs so you can only run what the company wants you to run? Sure, it might help with piracy, but it would seriously limit the box as well as hurt private and 3rd party programmers. Wait a minute.....Palladium....Microsoft....NOOO!!!!! *drops on the floor and shakes violently*
Re:Modchips (Score:2)
If memory serves (and clarification/corrections are welcome) the NRA has done a lot of work to protect the right to have guns. Perhaps we need something like DigitalConsumer.org to grow and fight these battles.
Re:Modchips (Score:2)
Besides, the Canadian was selling pie_rat games! (Score:2, Informative)
Get a GRIP, Slashdot!
Movies, or programs, not both.. (Score:2)
It seems retarded to try and make every claim under the sun.. they probably would have been better off to make a somewhat valid claim and stick with it.. throwing in at the last minute that games are also movies, isn't really smart.. esp. considering the judge saw right through it.