Slashdot Mirror
Australian Commisssion Defends Playstation Mod-Chipping
newt writes "The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is intervening in a court case to defend Sony Playstation owners' right to modify their consoles to play imported games. The ACCC is submitting a friend of the court brief, arguing that Sony's regional playback controls are unlawful. This has implications for DVD region zoning too: The ACCC has previously
published its concerns about DVD regioning, and its latest press release about this case reiterates the problems presented to Australian consumers by Sony's practices."
What is the difference between a mod chip'd console and a non-modded console? Besides being able to play foreign games, of course.
What is the technical difference?
In other regions, where the region coding is used as a price control (read: gouging), consumers are little more irrate. Hence government action.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
All they have to do is make sure that all their releases have some content that is banned in Australia, and sponsor raids against the importers. Then they get legislation passed REQUIRING them to add region control.
Over here, the government guarantees a "reasonable" minimum warranty on all purchased items, ignoring any "lets screw the customer" EULA-s or the like. I suspect that suing Microsoft for faulty software would succeed in Australia, but would fail in the US.
The creators of the idea of DVD regions claimed that it would be used to deliver the DVD technology to relatively poor countries in a cheap way. For instance, soemody from India cant afford the prices in the US, so they have their own zone, with cheaper prices. This allows the diversity without destroying the US market.
But this idea (that doesnt sound bad at first) limits our rights over our own stuff. If i have a receipt for a buying, i must have the right to do anything with it. It doenst mean i can use the DVD to rip someone's head off, but i can play freebie with it if i feel like it.
What happens if i buy a DVD player and 100 movies and then moye to another continent?? is silly to restrict the use of something i legally bought.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
The problem I forsee is that Sony could stop selling Playstations in Austraila altogethor. If they think they might lose money over it, I'm sure they would seriously consider it.
The Australian Parliament does whatever the hell they feel like.
In the lead up to the last election the Government tried to pass a law that would allow the defense forces to force a boat out of Australian waters at the discretion of the captiain of the defense vessel giving him/her no responsibility if the boat then sank or whatever. This was part of the government's 'get tough on refugees' campaign (which got them elected). Due to their incompetence the bill was so vague that it basically gave the defence the right to force an Australian vessel containing Australian citizens out of Australian waters. It was the most rushed through bill in Australian history, but the opposition at least had their eyes open and refused to pass it in the senate.
Complete insanity.
Heck, I have a DVD player in pieces in my basement because I'm curious how it works--but under no circumstance will that allow the manufacturer to come into my house to see if I've broken a copyright protection mechanism. Once I start selling chips, though.... all bets are off.
So if I create a mod chip for my car and resale my technology, you're telling me that the manufacturer is due some profit from my efforts even though it was developed completely without their help? That's insane! What if I develope an IR to RF converter for my Sony remote control which I developed without any of Sony's help. Should Sony get a peice of the pie? Of course not. If I state that these devices function with with a Sony system and a Pontiac car (common practice on many items commonly available from most stores), in what way am I violating their trademarks or patents? Since this goes on every day with cars and many other goods, in what way is this any different for a gaming console. Last I heard, Ford, Chevy, Pontiac, etc., have not lost their trademarks nor had their patients violated by these systems. The car metaphore is very close to home as it modifies the car's operation to function in a manner different than comes from the manufacurer. So what's the issue. This is no way shape or form, constitutes a patent or trademark violation. In fact, last I heard (uncomfirmed), Sony is in violation of internation trade laws by placing the zoning logic into their devices (as is every electronic device which has restrictive zoning logic).
As for the ruling that the concept is illegal, there is clearly LOTS of prior cases which invalidate the courts ruling, clear and simple! Simply put, the judge is a moron. Based on his assertion allow for only a slight extension of his logic, if I purchase a book from another country and it is locally available from another publisher, I've now violated copyright. That's insane. When will these judges realize that just because the word "computer" or "electronic" is used it doesn't somehow invalidate logic or all other laws based on simular technologies.
Anyone remember this article only a couple of weeks ago? More and more, courts from around the world are disagreeing with one another in regards to copyright issues and technology. Are DVDs software or film?
This is only the beginning of a slew of court rulings and laws that will confict with each other and throw the already confused state of affairs into absolute chaos.
And why would someone like me want to study this in grad school? Because it's f**king cool - that's why =)
taco
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
A high degree of muslim men have homosexual tendencies.
In the west, we no longer see homosexuality as a stigma, it is simply accepted.
However, in the middle east, its far different.
That explains the poor treatment of women by muslim men; they are gay, repressed, and as a result they act out their brutal fantasies towards women.
I was talking to a group of young, thoughtful muslim men, and despite being raised in the US, they still had ideas that are indicative of poorly conditioned minds. For example, they believe women are raped in the US because of "short skirts". Interestingly, this probably is more a mirror of their conflicted inner self which is telling them to "protect" women and at the same time, they have a great deal of anger towards the same women because it conflicts with their repressed homosexual urges.
I realize you think this is nonsense, but it is a fact that the muslim prisoners in cuba attempt to punish the US guards by masturbating, and flinging the ejaculate at American guards.
Again, its an interesting thought process that goes on. There is a real sexual tension of being locked up with another man, but at the same time, the same self-loathing makes them believe their ejaculate is the foulest substance in their body. They feel their ejacualate is the worst thing that comes from their body. But notice, this is the same thing they use to conceive a child with a woman. Therefore, they view women and their own sexuality in the lowest terms.
You think I'm full of crap, but I'm dead on with this analysis. Muslim men are very confused, and the 21st century genuinely scares them because it hits at the weakest part of their beliefs.
Secretly, every muslim man cheered the September 11th attack, because it validates that primal feeling that modern life, as practiced in the USA, brings out the confused feelings about their sexuality, women, and their relationship with other people. Its hard to deal with if you've been sheltered your entire life.
They drive on the left, along with basically all former British colonies outside of North America.
It's an interesting little historical digression as to why different countries drive on the sides of the road they do. It actually all goes back to Napoleonic Europe. Before Napoleon, everyone used the left side of the road. It just sort of naturally happened that way, most people are right handed after all, and if that passer-by jumps at you as he goes by, you want your strong hand (which might well be holding a sword, after all) between you. Or if you were in a chariot, or on a horse, the weapon typically would be in the right hand, the reins in the left - which leads to the same thing. So for centuries everyone in europe used the left side of the road.
Then came Napoleon. And the Napoleonic wars. Horrid bloody confused battles, gunsmoke obscuring view, troops arriving late and needing to tell friend from foe quickly when they marched into view along a roadway. Plus Napoleon was a bit of an iconoclast anyway. So he came up with a way that his armies could quickly tell friend from foe, even under the most confused conditions. He decreed that the French would now use the right side of the road, not the left. Anyone marching on the left side of the road was the enemy. He conquered nation after nation, and when they were conquered, they switched sides and used the right side of the road.
The British were never conquered. They still use the left to this day. So do their former colonies (with the exceptions mentioned.)
Sweden also he did not conquer. However, back in the 1960s, the Swedes did finally change over to be compatible with the nations around them. They had some rather confused motorists for a bit, as you might imagine, but eventually everyone got used to it. Most other European nations that Napoleon didn't conquer (such as Switzerland, for instance) nevertheless made that adjustment long before, for the sake of commerce with their neighbors.
Ahh but now the strange exception in North America. We actually went through a period of relative chaos on this issue - most early Americans were from England after all, but then again, we fought the British and those French had helped us... so there was some disagreement and regional variation, although the right side was probably more popular, particularly early on. Henry Ford actually was the one that put an end to it. He had a bit of a fetish about efficiency - you may know that he only put out his cars in one colour, for instance, to simplify the painting stage of production, not to mention his supply logistics. So it was natural he would want to decide to put the steering wheel on one side or the other, not both (an option his competitors catered to.) He settled on the left, it is said, because his left arm was weak from a childhood illness and he found it difficult to shift gears with it. So he put the steering wheel on the left, shifted with his right, and his cars became so successful that the entire continent was soon driving on the left side of the road.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.