Slashdot Mirror
Mod Chips Legal In the UK
An anonymous reader writes "Good news out of the UK! Techdirt reports that an appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling and has now said that mod chips do not violate copyright laws. The case involved a mod chip seller, who imported mod chips for the XBox from Hong Kong and would sell the chips or mod the Xbox's himself. He was charged with copyright infringement and found guilty by a lower court. The appeals court has dismissed all charges, however."
After I buy something, it is _mine_ ! Case closed. I can do whatever I want to do with it. If I had stolen it then I am guilty. I don't see a case otherwise.
At the risk of being accused of trolling Microsoft have the right to decide whatever rules they like about access to Xbox live.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Does this establish that the whole idea of it being a crime to provide a service that allows others to circumvent copyright is going to fall apart?
i.e. will they still be shutting down sites like tv-links.co.uk which was only linking to copyright infringing material, not providing it?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
"Where the law is too complex for the average person to understand, then there is something wrong with it."
great point. I have been saying for some time, that as there are so many laws that its impossible for any individual to be aware of all legislation that pertains to them, how can it be possible for a well-meaning individual to obey said laws? Therefore how can this legislation be valid?
SURELY NOT!!!!!
That's because the view (which is, to their mind, legitimate), is not that modding isn't illegal, its just that the law hasn't caught up with the requirements of modern technology.
There are situations where this viewpoint is entirely valid, and some where it is not. Thats why we have the judiciary in the first place.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
It's playback prevention.
Nobody protects my playback. Actually, the opposite takes place.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ignorantia legis non excusat
Just wait until you get a 3 year old stepping on your video game/dvd case then you'll see why you need 'backup' copies...
Unless of course the companies are willing to furnish a brand new copy for a damaged or destroyed old copy rather than milk the customer for another $20 for a DVD or $60 for a game.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
In general, I think they're far too trigger-happy on creating new laws because it happens to be an old crime using new technology. Like the law a little while back on "cyberbulling", isn't harassment already a crime? Fraud? Theft? Blackmail? If i blocked the door to your brick-and-mortar store, they'd certainly find a way to prosecute my "denial-of-service" attack. Yes, there are probably a few crimes that really are new, but most aren't. Sometimes they don't make sense like we go from big industrial pirate industry to smalltime individual pirates, then the penalites should go up, up and away. Cyber-something is most an excuse to push new laws going in the direction they want.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So kick her out.
That is, after all, what most people choose to do.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
From what I've heard, EULA's aren't very proven in court (in the US specifically, but also elsewhere). While it may be more applicable, it could be very dangerous-- if EULAs were held to simply be invalid, then a lot more than mod chip litigation is screwed over. Copyright is more proven, and indeed, cases like this are more likely to be won, or can be lost without as much devastation (copyright in its entirety will not be thrown out over such a case). It actually was won, of course, so the logic for copyright did have some foundation (even if not as much as using the EULA and contract law)-- just not enough for the next-higher level.
-Devin Jeanpierre
(1) We want to prevent copyright infringement (see why copyright infringement is illegal).
(2) Banning possession of mod chips will help achieve (1) as pirated games cannot be played.
(3) Banning sale of mod chips is easier than (2) as it is easier to prosecute ten distributors than a thousand consumers.
(4) Politicians decide, rightly or wrongly, "allowing import games and backup copies" is wanted only by a small fraction of people.
(5) Politicians judge that our collective desire from (1) to prevent copyright infringement, scaled by the effectiveness of (2) and (3), is greater than our desire from (4) for the non-piracy benefits of mod chips.
There are other examples of laws like this; driving fast doesn't harm people, vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian collisions harm people. But we regulate vehicle speed to achieve the goal of regulating vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian collisions because vehicle speed is easier to regulate.
Mod chips dont pirate games, people do.
Who's the idiot that labels everything 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense'?
Maybe it was funny a year ago (to him at least), but come on...stop abusing labels, they aren't that useful to begin with, don't make it even worse!