Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: No Xbox for You!
Markel writes "According this this story in the Sydney Morning Herald, Microsoft is very concerned about a man having been acquitted after allegedly selling [mod chips for a PlayStation]. So concerned in fact, that they are saying: change the law, or they will have to reconsider selling the Xbox in Australia. Not selling the Xbox is well within their rights, but putting it in a (I paraphrase slightly) "change the law or we'll .." context seems assuming a bit too much. I guess well see how many of our MPs are XBox gameheads."
The trial in question was actually about a man who sold PS2 mod chips to allow PS2s to play imported and copied games. Not some magical chip that allows the Xbox to play PS2 games.
:)
Excellent editing there.
Nintendo, Sony, and other companies over the years have had to deal with mod chips and people who like to mod their hardware. Last I checked, these companies are not having financial difficulty because of modding.
What bug is up MS's butt?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
...couldn't Microsoft just be saying this to try and kick up sales of the Xbox? If the government refuses to change its position, then there'll probably be panic buying of Xboxes before MS withdraws them from Australia.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Why should australia care if MS sells the XBox there? Are they in such a horrible financial situation that not having the third place console out of three consoles sales wise would hurt them that much? Or do people over there just play THAT many games? Sheesh, talk about ego on the part of Microsoft.
I think they have every right to do this
I don't think anybody is claiming that Microsoft doesn't have the right to sell or not sell XBox's wherever they please. However, this does not translate into the right to buy a law to suit their needs.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
If I was an MSFT shareholder, I would find this news troubling to say the least. "Here at Microsoft we believe marketshare and expanding the Xbox community comes after making sure 1 or 2% of Austrailian users aren't using our product to play the "competition's" games." To quote Randolph Duke from Trading Places: "SELL! SELL!" *boggle*
I believe six of then are called Bruce
Help fight continental drift.
they are $199... just ignore that PS2 logo on the side of the box, its the only box i had left. OH, and you'll need these 'special' xbox controllers. (the ps2 logos on those were misprints from the xbox factory, don't worry).
here is now it work, plug in your xbox, now plug in this 'mod chip' to the same power strip, and they will communicate using WiFi... put your PS2 games, in the 'mod chip' after plugging it in, and plug the 'mod controllers' into the 'mod chip' everything should work fine out of the box.
ENJOY,
i take orders at my website below -|
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
After the launch of a Telstra mobile computing device, Mr Ballmer said the decision affected Xbox's business model, which relies on subsidising the hardware console in return for a royalty on every game sold.
The criminal law related to murder is bad for my business model as a hit man, which relies on accepting payment for people I have killed.
This is a hollow threat. Microsoft is simply going to *completely* concede the Australian video game market to Sony and Nintendo because they aren't getting their way.
Oh no! Please don't deny me your library of inferior games, Microsoft! Whatever would I do?
If the disk was damaged or faulty, you'd return it under warranty.
Welcome, traveler, to our dimension! I hope you enjoy your stay here. What other strange customs do companies practice in your homeland?
To forbid the sale of anything Microsoft owns. Or at least make it look like they are going to. I bet Microsoft will be the one backpeddling then!
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
They are going to "reconsider" selling the xbox? They need every possible market to sell this money-loser. It would be stupid to lock out a whole market of potential buyers. Are they going to sit back and let Sony and Nintendo take over? If this were true, Sony would want to lose this modchip case, it would end up helping them in the end.
I just don't buy it.
This is a prime example of when someone should call Microsoft's bluff.
Any law changes they make should be set to expire in a year, when Microsoft will have discontinued the X-Box and they'll be $49.95 at Toys-R-Us. I wonder if I will be able to interface my IntelPlay(R) Microscope to an X-Box?
PS/2 + modchip = CanPlayThirdPartyGames
Canon + adapter = CanUseThirdPartyLenses
The decision in the case (Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment v Stevens [2002] FCA 906) is available here
This was the first attempted prosecution in Australia under the changes introduced in the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000, and Sony has vowed to appeal the above adverse decision to the full bench of the Federal Court.
This would be the same Australia that sold refugees?
Doesn't exactly sound like nice ethics to me... The continuing suppression of Aboriginals is also far from nice...
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
I just saw the last shred of journalistic integrity go down the fucking drain here! XBox mod chip to play PS2 games my ass!
Why not just let the trolls post stories about free RAM with links to goatse.cx?
Slashdot Reader: Oh wow, free ram OH MY GOD THAT IS SO SICK MY EYES MY EYES THEY BURN ARrrrrr....
Damn it.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
From the article quoting Steve Balmer:
"If there are aspects that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
If the legal frame work of a given locality doesn't support your business model, don't use it. In the past few years we've all seen a bunch of crazy business models crash at full speed into the solid wall of reality. What Balmer is proposing here makes even the worst dot-bomb plan look sterling. Even groups like the RIAA and the MPAA can claim that "times and technology have changed" when they go to try to change laws. In this case MS is the newcomer to an existing markeplace that has had to deal with the problem of mod chips for quite some time. I suppose that this just shows that you don't have to smart to help run a multi-gajillion dollar company.
Hopefully the "change the law" business model doesn't become as popular as the "put it online and they will buy it" model was. If this takes off one can just imagine the headlines: "Company fails to buy law, declares bankruptcy." If that wouldn't be grounds for a mismanagement suit on the part of investors, I don't know what would be.
Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
What's broken is regional lockouts. I do not support using mod chips to play burned games, and I don't know if those are even available now that xbox games come on DVD. There is no reason I find acceptable to keep me from playing Japanese or European games on a North American system. Companies should bring games to all three markets in a timely fashion. Too many games never make it to certain markets, mod chips actually increase sales of those games for the market it was released in. Plenty of games get brought to NA with awful voice acting in place of the great Japanese. I'd far rather play the Japanese version, especially when the Japanese version has an English subtitles option.
In Oz, it's essentially illegal to enforce region coding, which this stoush seems to be about. It's considered anti-competitive. Similarly, a company cannot stop a product from being imported into the country, even if it already sold there (no anti-grey marketting laws). So basically you could still get your xboxen if you really wanted to and MS can do fuck all about it.
It's interesting to note that Visa and Mastercard are thretening similar action if the Reserve bank doesn't back down on some reforms.
One day, when we get rid of all the evil corporates, Australia will be the perfect place to live.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
It really is sad that some great games don't make it to other regions. Americans at large _still_ think that the Sega Saturn was a fruitless platform, when some of the best games of that generation are Saturn exclusives.
Ever since I was young, reading about all the games released in Japan for the Famicom and PC Engine that would never make it to the NES & TurboGrafx-16, I've always wished that the American arms of Japanese game companies wouldn't pick and choose on behalf of the American market which games to release, particularly regarding sequels. The infamous example: Secret of Evermore is _not_ as good a game as the game that should have been released here in its stead, Seiken Densetsu 3 -- sequel to Secret of Mana.
As an American, my heart has to go out to the PAL region gamers. Not just is availability of most Japanese titles more limited than in the U.S. (with the odd notable exception), but the quality of the gameplay often suffers because games weren't programmed with the PAL video standard in mind, or the translations from the European publishers can be very bad (from what I'm told).
< tofuhead >
It is still the dark of night.
Not such a valid reason these days, since the vast majority of modern TV sets (and lets face it, how many people likely to buy a PS2/Xsux/Gamecube *really* will be using an ancient television?) sold in Europe are more than capable of displaying NTSC signals. Makes sense really since the TV manufacturers don't have to make everything twice.
Additionally, how the images are output to TV at hardware level has nothing to do with the game software at all.
It's just another excuse to fix prices.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Couple of items.
1) Now is a really, really bad time to be telling us what to do about our own laws. We are in a state of mourning over the Bali Terrorist attack. A foreign company telling us to change our laws will go down like a lead ballon. The desires of a company to sell products is right at the bottom of important things list.
2) The regional encoding is likely to illegal under the Trade Practices Act (similar to the US Anti-Trust law by wider ranging). Currrently the ACCC (the statutory authority assigned to oversea compliance with the TPA) is taking DVD producers to court over this very issue. If the ACCC wins then regional encoding of games will also be illegal.
Microsoft is threatening to not sell the XBox in Australia due to a guy being acquitted for making mod chips. Now just above Australia, is China. Wasn't there some crazy stat that 78% (2000) of the software in China is pirated and Microsoft is still selling there? If I was a Microsoft share holder I would be concern on the focus of Microsoft. I think less XBox mods are going to sell compared to copies of Office or XP.
The games do have to be programmed differently if they are going to be run on NTSC or PAL.
Oh really? PAL has two variations: the 625-line, 50-Hz PAL used for European TV, and the 525-line, 60-Hz PAL/M used for Brazilian TV and for European video games. PAL/M gives exactly the same pixel count (about 720x480) as the NTSC signal used in Japan and the USA. Thus, NTSC-style games on modern PAL consoles will run in PAL/M mode. (Older PAL consoles often halted the CPU during the extra scanlines of PAL, resulting in a slower game.) Not only do almost all PAL TVs multisync to both PAL and PAL/M signals, many can also display NTSC signals.
Another reason Nintendo releases at different times in different regions is they have a policy of only releasing a game after translating it to the local language
Then why not simultaneously release in the United States and the United Kingdom?
The real reason for region coding is the fact that different companies may own the copyrights or the exclusive licenses under copyright on a given work in different countries. For instance, Peter Pan fell out of copyright a long time ago in the United States, but the United Kingdom has passed a statutory perpetual copyright on the work and on all derivative works. The region lockout is intended partly to enforce parallel-import restrictions on works in markets where they don't have copyright clearance.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Amazing.
Razor companies sell the handle as a loss-leader, making up huge profits on the blades. Sure, some third-party blades that fit the handle come out that are cheaper, and the original company complains somewhat, but the vast majority continue to buy the "genuine article", and life goes on.
Ink jet printer manufacturers probably don't make a dime on the printers themselves: the profit is in the ink carts. Yes, some people buy refill kits, but still the vast majority buy the real replacement cartridges. Token complaining aside, the printer maker is happy.
The same is true, I'm certain, with the X-Box. There aren't that many modded systems out there to make more than the tiniest dent in actual sales of X-Box games. In a sane political environment, Microsoft would whine a bit but really, there would be nothing they could do, as the console belongs to the citizen and it should be none of Microsoft's business what anyone does with it.
Microsoft, however, has the advantage of being on the "right" side of the WIPO treaties which forbid all this "digital theft", and effectively remove a person's right to do what he/she wants with their own property. The USA was a "leader" in this: by passing the DMCA in 1998, they were easily the first Western nation to ratify this crap into what is now international law.
Most countries that signed onto the agreement haven't yet ratified it, but most are getting close to doing so.
Seems the Australian court system wasn't told how to rule properly on this issue. Ballmer thinks that a nudge may be required to make sure Australia is in line. Must be nice to have that kind of influence.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Just to expand on this a little...
The reason that regional encoding in general is viewed so dimly in Australia is simply because as a small market, Australia frequently gets hammered on prices relative to the rest of the world.
So, regional encoding looks like it's really set up to be price gouging to Australians.
There's been several investigations into, eg why CDs cost so much more in Australia than in other countries, or at least used to, before the exchange rate bombed.
Of course, this is the great thing about the internet. You can find the price of anything in nearly any market.
Frequently governments find this troubling, because it means they are missing out on sales tax, duties etc.
For corporations, I've heard of situations where they simply go and set up a subsidiary in the country which offers the cheapest relative price and do a corporate wide deal.
Consumers don't have that luxury, but Oz seems to have some resistance built up re this nonsensical price fixing by global corporations.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
There are more open source programmers in Oz per capita than in the US. There are also more xbox game developers per capita than in the US too. I wonder if they will still write games for an Xbox when they can't get them.
Remember that Aussie laws allowed the realese of ssleay and Samba. Writing ssleay as open source in the US was illegal at the time it was written. Its wide distribution was one of the key factors in getting the US crypto export laws fixed since congress was concerned about the US not keeping its crypto edge over the rest of the world.
However I think the goverment woudl cave in if MS started pushing them around.
Lets just take this apart a little to see the stench inside shall we?
From the article:
Microsoft would be forced to reconsider selling the Xbox video game system in Australia
Now the spin:
Take the word 'forced', for example. Why exactly is that word in there? Who is forcing them? Is the force economic or social or some other force? Have they been given some sort of order that they must follow? How exactly does one force a large company like microsoft to do anything?
What they are saying is that they are forced to decide. Forced really adds little here because it is the deciding that actually matters and that is why decide is clearly the right word choice here, not forced. Indeed.
More from the article:
, or seek changes to the law, following the acquittal in July of a Sydney man
And the spin
Now they take that little bit of momentum gained from the poor use of 'forced' above and add to it. Here they polarize the issue. When one polarizes an issue, they generally have one good choice, which is the one they want you to identify with, and that other bad choice. Simple isn't it. Just change the law and things will be good because things can either be good or bad, and none of us wants bad so lets work together for good huh? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?
It's not. They limit all the avaliable choices to exactly two. The one they want, and the one that nobody wants. Realistically there are many other options avaliable to them, but that complicates things just a little. Can't have that when you are trying to sway public opinion about complicated things. Keep it simple, that way it's easier for everyone to see your point.
More from the article:
alleged to have sold chips that modify a Sony PlayStation 2 to play imported games
And the spin:
Alleged? Where do we normally hear that word? We hear that word when we refer to someone who we think committed a crime. This is a negative word, not a positive one... ever. Can you remember the last time you heard the word 'alleged' in connection with something good? I can't.
Now that's a pretty decent piece of spin because of what comes next. What is that you ask? The actual crime! In this case it happens to be selling chips that allow people to play imported games. There is so much wrong with this I almost don't know where to start.
Playing import games is legal for one. implying that this is a crime is clearly a deception no doubt about it. None. A simple thought exercise cuts right through that one. Here is mine:
You are in Japan playing a game you find interesting. You buy it, legally mind you, and bring it home. It does not work. You are frustrated to learn that the company who was happy to sell you the game is also responsible for the fact that you cannot use it at home. What to do? Return it? Wrong answer, you see you opened it when you tried to play your legally purchased game so thats out. IMport an entire console? Too expensive, besides you have one already and are trying to be a loyal customer, but too much is too much. What's left? Several things, but the most obvious is a mod chip. Simple easy and legal.
So this linking of crime and mod chips and import games sounds a lot like drugs. Shady people sell you some thing that is in poor taste. Playing import games is in poor taste, who does that? It all adds up to making the whole thing look bad. Which it clearly is not.
From the Article:
, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said yesterday.
And the spin:
None of this would be worth discussing if it came from a nobody, but it came from a chief executive. Now that's somebody. Not only a chief executive, but one that runs one of the largest companies in the world. Maybe we all better think this one over because a guy like this would not just bring this up over nothing would he?
The very title conveys a certain level of creedence to this whole thing, but for a minor point. The company he runs is in the middle of the largest anti-trust litigation known. Doesn't this put just a little different light on things?
From the article:
Mr Ballmer said the decision affected Xbox's business model, which relies on subsidising the hardware console in return for a royalty on every game sold.
Now the spin:
This actually is a true statement with regard to the business model. They need to sell games, or take a loss on each console. Saying the legal decision affected that business model though is clearly false. Someone who buys an xbox who also imports a game paid for both. How does this break the model? Games are sold as are consoles. Clearly this is worded to imply that the alleged selling of chips will affect Microsofts ability to make money.
Now the truth here is, mod chips can do this, if they allow users to run other things, but in this case, the users are running the things they are supposed to be able to run anyway; namely, import games. So, Microsoft does not like mod chips because there is a possibility that they could be used in ways that could harm their business model, but they can't say that so they imply it.
From the article:
Microsoft has slashed the retail price of an Xbox from $649 to $399, which resulted in increased hardware sales and more game software sold.
And the spin:
This is a fact. They have lowered their price to compete with SONY. According to them it is working, and it likely is, but this is something they choose to do. Having it mentioned here just adds to the negative connotation alrealy implied with the 'alleged' crime discussed earlier. Another point worth mention here is that SONY has been dealing with this the entire time and seems to make lots of money. Why can't Microsoft?
They have no real basis for a statement against another nations legal system just because they have to keep their price low in order to boost sales of their product. This is a pretty arrogant stand to take --if you look though the spin.
From the article:
But Sony, which saw sales of PlayStation 2 titles decline 19 per cent in the same period, still dominates, selling 28 per cent of all titles, against Xbox's 7 per cent.
And the spin:
This paints the picture of the perfect underdog. Everyone wants an xbox don't they? If these criminals are allowed to sell mod chips then some people just might not get one. They might have to settle for a SONY instead. You can carry that little piece farther if you want, it's easy.
From the article:
"Given the way the economic model works
And spin:
Note the use of the word 'the'. This is clever because it implies that there is only one economic model. What they should say here is, "Given the way our economic model works". Again subtle word use to shift blame from them to another entity; namely, the Australian legal system.
From the article:
, and that is a subsidy followed, essentially, by fees for every piece of software sold, our licence framework has to do that
And spin:
This is a complex way of saying we need some money for every game sold. Fair enough, but the alleged crime mentioned above does nothing to hinder that, so why bother with this whole affair in the first place. Is there something we are not seeing? If so, why hide it. Everyone would be a lot better off knowing what is is.
From the article:
"If there are aspects that are not allowed, it would encourage us to require a change in the legal framework. Otherwise, it wouldn't make economic sense."
And spin:
Basically they are saying here, if they cannot do what they want, then they don't want to do it at all. Sounds like the reasoning of a three year old plain and simple.
Essentially what is happening here is this.
Microsoft is saying that they want income from every xbox both from the sale of the actual box, and the games following that.
They say that a chip intended for users to play imported games hinders that in some fashion, but decline to discuss exactly what that is exactly.
So they basically throw down their gauntlet and say, either play the way we want, or we won't play at all.
What exactly is anyone supposed to realistically think about this? Should we support a change to another nations legal system because they tell us that the law there might hinder them from making the amount of money they want to make, or that the think they should be making with nothing but implications to that end?
Spin Indeed.
Blogging because I can...
Really? I think that the VAST majority of Australian posters here have made the point that parallel importation is LEGAL in Oz and that region-locking is ILLEGAL. If I have an early DVD player or an XBox or PS/2 that is region-locked, I have to chip it before I can play the games/DVDs I have legally imported from outside Australia. This is hardly piracy.
I am not Australian and I do not own a game console or a stand-alone DVD player. I DO own a combo CD-RW/DVD-ROM drive in my PC. I DO have libdvdcss installed so I can (sometimes unsuccessfully) try to play legally-purchased, original DVDs on my PC because I am Microsoft-free by choice. If a DVD refuses to play on my system, I return it to the store as a defective product, because they NEVER show "system requirements" on the outside of the packaging, thereby breaching, at minimum, the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code.
NO vendor is entitled to tell me that I MUST use Windows or any other particular software product AFTER the purchase. In fact, they have a duty to inform me, the purchaser, of any special requirements BEFORE the purchase so I can make an informed decision whether I want to make the purchase or not.
For Rosen, Valenti or YOU to accuse me of piracy in writing is libel and I demand a retraction.
utter rubbish