Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News Hardware

Australian Federal Court Overturns Legal Modchip Sales 177

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, the Australian Federal Court overruled the previous ruling on modchips in Australia. I am pretty sure the overruled case is the mainstay for the 'legal' use of modchips in Australia (predominantly Linux on the Xbox). Haven't seen this hit the media yet, with the exception of the Australian Financial Review referring to it in the Free Trade Agreement context. The ruling can be found here. Although not a lawyer, it appears the original judgement was made on the basis that Sony did not provide a copy protection system. Also noted is that there is limited commercial use for the mod other than circumvention. Wonder what will happen to modchips for the Xbox, given that it can be argued that running Linux could easily be seen as commercial."

Reader silne adds "According to the article in The Australian's IT section, it's not illegal to possess or use a mod chip, just illegal to sell them. Looks like another win for Sony. Hopefully the ACCC is going to appeal this one." Bigthecat supplies a link to coverage at news.com.au, as well.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Federal Court Overturns Legal Modchip Sales

Comments Filter:
  • by Joel Carr ( 693662 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:11AM (#6578025)
    I find this very disappointing given that third party tying is well and truely illegal here in Australia, and mod chips allow consumers to regain the rights console makers have been trying to take away from them.

    Essentially a mod chip allows a consumer to run whatever they like on the hardware they bought, not only what company X says they can.

    The problem is that company X has total control over what can be run on the hardware without mod chips. This means they can sell a product and then say you can only run a select list of programs on the hardware from companies as dictated by them. This is third party tying, and this is illegal in Australia.

    In short, mod chips return to Australian consumers the rights they're entitled to under Australian law. This rulling removes them again.
  • Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Matrix2110 ( 190829 ) * on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:16AM (#6578042) Journal
    Very ironic that the big companys wish to deny us new open hardware and at the same time ramming DRM into legacy hardware. Ala media player 9 (Plan 9?) I would normally be a lot more concerned, however since Microsoft is set to embrace and extend this new field of DRM, I am not worried.

    Go to Google and try to find a method for saving a Quicktime video stream. It can be done but you have to be persistant. Now try the same thing with Media Player... Google goes nuts showing you freeware up the wazzo to do just this very thing.

    I am not worried.

  • Case opens (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:41AM (#6578100) Homepage

    Two years ago Mr Eddy Stevens sold unauthorised copies of computer games on CD-ROMs for use on Sony PlayStations. He also supplied and installed modifying chips in PlayStation consoles

    Case closed. We really need to find better cause celebres rather than letting rights owners pick the fights.

  • Several Issues (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fven ( 688358 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:42AM (#6578105)
    The ruling seems to indicate that not only are modchips illegal, but software solutions that allow playing of ah.. unauthorised discs are also illegal.

    In Australia it is illegal for vendors to 'lock' products with products from third parties.
    This ruling seems to side with the manufacturers without addressing any of their failings. There is possibly wrongdoing on both sides here (ie offering a product for sale that does not comply with these 'third party lock in' laws)

    With respect to the 'could reasonably know that a device would be used for copyright infringement' or 'that commercial viability of non-infringing uses for such device would be minimal' there are a couple of cases in point:
    The playing of legally purchased games from overseas.
    The use of backup copies of legally purchased material.

    One way a number of companies remove the need to allow backup copies is to offer exchange at no or minimal cost of damaged media. I have not seen any examples of game manufacturers offering this service.

  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @04:44AM (#6578109)
    only allows linux to be used and doesnt allow any pirated games to be played (i.e. it would be pre-flashed with a linux bios image that had no (C) microsoft code in it)

    Also, it could be built to boot bootable cdroms (such as a sutably modified knoppix disk or something), so that you could e.g. modify the installer for a sutable linux distro and make a set of ISOs ready to install that would give you e.g. red hat or mandrake or whatever with sutable mods for xbox and xbox h/w

    Since the digital signature on xbox disks is the "access control" and since this doesnt allow one to play xbox games, pirated or otherwise and since it doesnt circumvent the "access control" as far as I can see (although IANAL and I dont know exactly what the relavent laws say)

    Given that the chip would be flashable, someone would come up with a bootable ISO that will put some other bios (such as "lets you play pirate games" one) on there but since the chip makers arent selling it or even linking to it, they cant get in trouble for it.
  • by Qrlx ( 258924 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @05:19AM (#6578183) Homepage Journal
    In America, we draw the line at .50 cal machine guns. Somehow, I dont' quite see a modchip being quite on par with a gun that is typically used to render industrial equipment functionless.

    But then, I'm kind of a Luddite.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2003 @05:29AM (#6578209)
    i don't get it. i bought the damn thing. if i want to i can just trow the damn XBox out the window! i bought it, it's mine! if i want to remove the chip, ram what ever it's up to me! it's MINE!

    it's like buying a calculator and then the law forbids me to use it to calculate how much plutonium i will need to reach critical mass!!! damn!
  • by bakes ( 87194 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @05:50AM (#6578260) Journal
    Sony make available a Linux Kit for the PS2, which allows you to do almost anything with your PS2. It's hard to argue that they're specifically restricting anything execpt illegal copying

    Except for the region coding factor. If I buy LEGAL games from overseas, either by visiting those countries or by mail order, I cannot play them. This reduces consumer choice, and is exactly why the ACCC were interested in this case.

    The ACCC kicked up a fuss about DVD region coding some time back, now pretty much any DVD player you buy in Oz is region free. I bought a DVD player last week, and there was a sticker on the box saying 'this product has been modified to conform to Australian regulations'. It had been de-region-ified.

    So anyway, if I was to buy a console now (I currently don't have one, but I could be a potential customer within 12 months) then the Sony PS2 would definitely be OFF my list.
  • Game Backups (Score:4, Interesting)

    by henele ( 574362 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @06:20AM (#6578332) Homepage
    If you ring up Microsoft's European Customer Support and ask for a replacement (even at a fee) for a damaged disk of a game they publish, you are told flately 'no' (in three different examples I know of).

    Since then I haven't bought any of their games, and I'd also strongly argue the case for me to backup the ones I do.
  • Re:FTA = Bend Over (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jquirke ( 473496 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @08:01AM (#6578666)
    I couldn't care less about the Australian TV content restrictions. If it means less bloody backyard/renovation shows, than so be it. Let's face it - that's all Australia can afford to put on TV anyway.
  • by stubear ( 130454 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @08:45AM (#6578903)
    You're right, it wouldn't work for a PLaystation. On the otherhand, Sony offers a Linux package that comes with a keyboard that works with the Playstation, no modchips necessary. I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to to protect their ability to violate copyright law and make excuses for why their particular violation is not really illegal.
  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) * on Thursday July 31, 2003 @09:24AM (#6579145) Homepage Journal
    Why should we allow tools that have no possible legal use?
    Because whenever someone says a tool has no legal use, they're always wrong.
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:23AM (#6580274) Homepage

    (Cue alternate history lesson)

    It was the early 1990s. UNIX workstations were DRM protected to only allow us to run the flavour of UNIX that was sold with them. Under purchaser pressure, the workstation/UNIX sellers caved in and allowed us to run any version of commercial UNIX that we wanted. Huzzah!

    Then along came this guy calling himself "Lunis", who claimed that he wanted to write his own kernel! How dumb did he think we were? He just wanted to pirate commercial UNIX kernels. Nobody writes their own kernels from scratch. What a crazy idea!

    (Cut to present day) Get the point? Having a short list of approved software precludes anyone doing what Linus did ever again. And "ever" is a long time.

  • by dissy ( 172727 ) on Thursday July 31, 2003 @11:34AM (#6580376)
    > Simply modding your PS2 and coding for it is illegal in the eyes of Sony,
    > Nintendo, and Microsoft. You need licenses.

    Fortunatly in the US, this doesnt matter for most of those companys.
    Due to first sale laws on the hardware, you can do anything you want with it and any part of it that is not under copyright.

    And even the parts under copyright you can do alot with, you just cant distribute them. So claiming a BIOS is copyrighted is fine, you just cant give out the BIOS code. You can still USE it. You can even change it to your hearts content, you just cant give out the new code, or arguably the changed code. A patch file (a difference between the old and new) is OK.
    Half the code in a diff file is copyrighted by you. The other half is indeed copyright by them, but has always fallen under fair-use laws because the small snippits are only used for context, and can not be used in and of themselfs for any other purpose except finding context in the origonal.
    Of course, you also cant USE this patch file unless you too have a licence to the BIOS, but as long as you bought your PS2 or whatever console, you do.

    That is why companys try adding encryption. The only console that its currently illegal to program for is the xbox, and only under the dmca laws due to encryption for accessing the system.

    Of course breaking encryption to read the game media is illegal, but this is only if you dont own the copyright on the media.
    If you write your own software, and its yours, you own the copyright. You are allowed to encrypt your data as needed by the console to play it, AND decrypt it again if you so choose because you are the copyright owner.

    Sony has no more right to tell you what you can and cant run on your property than Intel can tell you what you use your new p4 for.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...