Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Upgrades Your Rights Online Entertainment Games Hardware

Italian Court Rules PlayStation Modchips Are Legal 23

Posted by timothy from the your-own-stuff dept.
cabalamat2 writes "An Italian court has ruled that PlayStation modchips are legal under the Italian version of the EUCD, because the modchips are not primarily intended to circumvent copyright protection measures, but to allow people to make backup copies of games (legal in Italy), play games not authorised by Sony, etc. The judge evidently wasn't impressed by what he called Sony's 'Absurd Restrictions' on usage."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Italian Court Rules PlayStation Modchips Are Legal More

Italian Court Rules PlayStation Modchips Are Legal

Comments Filter:
  • This means that next time I am in Italy I can play games from China?

  • Note for Commonwealth and US Slashdot readers (Score:4, Informative)

    by simonecaldana ( 561857 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:16PM (#7976307) Homepage
    Italy does not have a "common law" law system, so this doesn't mean "from now on in Italy it is fully legal to produce, sell, install and use modchips". It means these people were not found guilty (and set s a "guideline, too, but this guideline is not enforceable in court)
    • So Italian courts do not have the concept of precedent, where the rulings of a prior court are used as justification when a similar issue comes up again? (I.e. Person A is found not guilty in regards to modchips, but Person B can be tried again the next day and concievably be found guilty)

      • Re:Note for Commonwealth and US Slashdot readers (Score:4, Informative)

        by glopk ( 576794 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @07:04PM (#7979920)
        Wrong. Italian courts do use legal precedents (or jurisprudence) and common social customs as authorities when deciding an issue. In fact, part of the [alcei.it]
        judge's argument in dismissing the case (the bit about FIAT absurdly trying to sell a car and imposing it can't be used out of town) is based on a common notion of "absurdity". Another item of note in the ruling [alcei.it] is the invalidation of "shrink-wrap" licenses.

        However, the original poster is partially correct in saying that the Italian legal system is based on civil law, rather than common law. This implies that jurisprudence is of lesser importance in legal proceedings. Roughly speaking, the order of importance of the legal sources in a civil law system (e.g. Italy, France, Germany) is as follows (from highest to lowest):
        1) Constitution and Consitutional Laws
        2) National laws (passed by the national parliament) and Government Executive Orders ("Decreti Legge").
        3) Regional laws (passed by the regional parliaments) within a region's territory.
        4) Government regulations
        5) Jurisprudence, customs.

        So, yes, Person B can be tried again the next day, in theory. In practice what happens is that, if the court (a) recognizes that the new case is *very* similar to the previous one and (b) the previous ruling is within the scope of the law, then the case will be may dismissed upon jurisprudential authority.

  • Reading the judgement makes me feel all warm and f (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:23PM (#7976388) Journal
    Reading the judgement makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The judge involved seems to have understood perfectly what this case is really all about.

    Restriction of free trade. Sony is free to have the parts made in cheap countries. So why are constumers not allowed to buy in cheap countries?

    Right to make a backup. I live in holland were the law allows the samething yet many games activily try to deny this right.

    He gets many other points as well. Just read it. I don't know if the text has been humanized but for a legal ruling it is very readable and points out many of the things /. been saying for years. Except this is being said by a judge who has to be listened to.

    Oh and as for the question of what this means for other countries. The judge does seem to have taken notice of the australian ruling and a german ruling I never heard off. So the next judge might now take a look at yet another ruling saying that modchips are legal.

    Great news.

    • I don't know if the text has been humanized

      Apparently not, the translation contains errors, but it attempts to be faithful: I may assure that the Italian version sounds pleasingly clear as well (which is not bad for a language where the same word is used both for "advanced" and for "leftover" :-).

      And yes, that's exactly the word being used: "ridiculous" (about shrink-wrap notices). Let's hope the meme is spread among other judges.

    • Re:Reading the judgement makes me feel all warm an (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:28PM (#7978960) Homepage Journal
      Restriction of free trade. Sony is free to have the parts made in cheap countries. So why are constumers not allowed to buy in cheap countries?
      Ah, the very essence of the globalisation debate. Companies fight for "free trade" so they can abuse workers in countries with no human rights, but if you suggest that perhaps you'd like to take advantage of the retail prices that exist in one of these countries and it's "an illegal parallel import". Welcome to capitalism, who would you like to sell your soul to today?

  • My favoite paragraph (Score:3, Informative)

    by parliboy ( 233658 ) <parliboy AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:47PM (#7976755) Homepage
    It is clear that under our legal system these conditions totally lacks of any value; whoever enter a shop and purchases a box with a software or a console inside, purchases without limits or conditions because he doesn't know what has been written (in English, maybe) into the box. States correctly the Civil Code that General Agreement Terms can be used against to the other contractor if the latter knew it before entering into the agreement; how could the purchaser know it if the seller didn't make it read and sign before give away the object and get the money?

    Rough translation: EULA's are bullshit.

  • Interesting read ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rip!ey ( 599235 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:59PM (#7976940)
    There's an absolute gem buried at the bottom of the linked court ruling. It's worth picking your way through the rather poor Italian-to-English translation to find it it.

    Specifically, "So all the attempt to bind the purchaser with after-purchase statements are simply ridiculous ..."

    It would appear from this and the surrounding paragraphs that the Italian courts would take a less than favourable view of the enforcability of shrink-wrap/click-through agreements such as your average EULA.

    • It would appear from this and the surrounding paragraphs that the Italian courts would take a less than favourable view of the enforcability of shrink-wrap/click-through agreements such as your average EULA.

      Not necessarily. It isn't that hard to find a distinction between purchasing hardware (an actual physical device, where using it for the purchaser's intentions seems natural) and purchasing a license to use copyrighted materials (where the material is information only and usage of the materials is a

  • Is it a console or is it not? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DrewBeavis ( 686624 ) on Thursday January 15, 2004 @05:14PM (#7991450)
    I liked the part where Sony told the EU is was a computer so it woulnd't have to pay the import duty on it as a game console, but now they told the court it was a console and that modding it to make it a computer is wrong. Which one is right, Sony?

Slashdot Top Deals

Heisenberg may have been here.

Close