Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Italian Court Rules PlayStation Modchips Are Legal

Posted by timothy on 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."

5 of 23 comments (clear)

  1. Why this judgement is good by cabalamat2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    A modchip is a chip that modifies how a game box works. This is good news for consumers, because it means that people using Playstations can now do what they want to do with them (at least if they live in Italy), and aren't just restricted to what Sony wants to allow them to do.

    There's also the wider issue. The judge in this case clearly thought Sony were being unreasonable, so he allowed circumvention of a TPM (which the EUCD and DMCA supposedly forbid), because the intention was other than to circumvent; the intention was to allow people to make backups, play games with different region codes, etc.

    I expect if a similar case regarding DVDs came before an Italian court, that circumventing the DVD CSS may well be ruled legal. People are starting to wake up to the fact that what the media corporations are trying to do is out of order.

  2. Note for Commonwealth and US Slashdot readers by simonecaldana · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Note for Commonwealth and US Slashdot readers by glopk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. Italian courts do use legal precedents (or jurisprudence) and common social customs as authorities when deciding an issue. In fact, part of the
      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 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.

  3. My favoite paragraph by parliboy · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    --
    "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
  4. Interesting read ... by Rip!ey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.