The Wholesale Forums

[geosamm]

I remember chipping PS1's, [yes Im that old] it was never argued openly that it was illegal to chip and most prosecutions came from the sale of copied games. Several arguments arose from the "back up" copy issue but things changed with the introduction of PS2. Copied games were available even before the chip was developed, and the 2 front runners in the chips availability suddenly hit the market at the same time. [I wish I could remember their names... yes I am that old.... I forget] Both parties were dragged to court and lost their case, but as I was a little preoccupied at the time I again cannot remember if it was a court decision or an outside settlement. The outcome was that most chipping went underground and was seen as illegal.
This new appeals case changes everything, for the moment at least.
No lower court can change the decision of a higher court or rule that the higher court decision is wrong. The appeals court has set a legal precedent [a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.] that can only be overturned by a higher court [and it could get to that stage at some point].
I have not read the court report so my statements are based purely on legal principal.
If someone has a link to the court report I could wade through it and give a more detailed interpretation.
This does not make it a world wide precedent.

[geosamm]

Originally Posted by Costaconsoles

I dont think that the court case means that they are allowed, would have thought each one would be evaluated separately. What this means is that charges against this man have been dropped but does not mean that it is legal and am pretty sure that the government will not let it become legal.Too much pressure from Billion Dollar companies.

unless subsequent cases are brought on different argument it does make it legal

[Costaconsoles]

Originally Posted by geosamm

unless subsequent cases are brought on different argument it does make it legal

no chance the Uk government will let piracy win

more chance of cherie blair being voted in top 10 of FHM sexiest women

[geosamm]

Originally Posted by Costaconsoles

no chance the Uk government will let piracy win

more chance of cherie blair being voted in top 10 of FHM sexiest women

well if all judges had their eyes poked out with a sharp stick wrapped in barbed wire and all other senses were deprived or all other entrants/nominations were from horror film make up sets............ it could be possible..... OK OK leave out the other nominations and it could be possible....... OK I concede.... your right

[Costaconsoles]

Originally Posted by geosamm

well if all judges had their eyes poked out with a sharp stick wrapped in barbed wire and all other senses were deprived or all other entrants/nominations were from horror film make up sets............ it could be possible..... OK OK leave out the other nominations and it could be possible....... OK I concede.... your right

Would rather see that - would be a sad day for women and FHM if Cherie was in top 10......cherie blair laying over the bonnet of a ferrari.......nightmares for a week now

[studio1one]

Originally Posted by Tango34uk

Studio1, sorry things have moved on in the UK slightly, at the moment they are allowed again, well in the Wii they are link - http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=13826

actually no.

If you read the full court report from that case

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1324.html

he was a very lucky man. The prosecution simply didnt press the prosecution on the right grounds, this ruling clearly, in teh judges eyes doesn't preclude more convictions based on the copying of IP material into ram as an act of piracy in itself

[geosamm]

Originally Posted by Costaconsoles

Would rather see that - would be a sad day for women and FHM if Cherie was in top 10......cherie blair laying over the bonnet of a ferrari.......nightmares for a week now

not if the Ferrari was upside down

[geosamm]

"In the end, therefore, one comes back to the UK Act. Is it enough if the technological measure is a discouragement or general commercial hindrance to copyright infringement or must it be a measure which physically prevents it? To our minds the position is clear – it is the latter. Neither the Directive nor the Act would have been drafted in the way that they are if such a general form of hindrance was enough."

and there we have the crux of the matter

[studio1one]

Originally Posted by geosamm

"In the end, therefore, one comes back to the UK Act. Is it enough if the technological measure is a discouragement or general commercial hindrance to copyright infringement or must it be a measure which physically prevents it? To our minds the position is clear – it is the latter. Neither the Directive nor the Act would have been drafted in the way that they are if such a general form of hindrance was enough."

and there we have the crux of the matter

I'm not so sure about that

1. <LI value=8>The prosecution contended that Mr Higgs was providing devices which enabled the circumvention of ETMs. But it is very important to understand the factual basis of the contention. It was not that the use of a modified console to play a game from an infringing CD-ROM itself involved any infringement of copyright. No attempt was made to prove that when such a CD-ROM is placed in a console, the console reads into its memory (particularly its random access memory, its "RAM") the program and copyright material included with it such as images and sound.
   
2. If such had been contended and proved (as it would seem very probable it could have been), it is difficult to see what defence there might have been. After all s.17 of the Act provides:

(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means

reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

(3) ….

(4) Copying in relation to a film or broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film or broadcast.

(5) …

(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.

and then the conclusion

" Mr Higgs is a fortunate man in that it may well be that if the legislation had been less complex and/or the Crown had had greater opportunity to consider the details of copyright law the case would have been proved on the basis that merely playing a pirated game involves making a copy in the console and thus involves infringement"

I think in the long term that will be the crux of the matter

[geosamm]

Originally Posted by studio1one

I'm not so sure about that




and then the conclusion


I think in the long term that will be the crux of the matter

well
part one was not contended therefore irrelevant to the matter in hand. It may become relevant in future cases.
part 2 (as it would seem very probable it could have been) could is not does but may become has in future cases.
part 3... Mr Higgins is indeed lucky.... but the actual crux of the case was the judgment and why/how the specific conclusions were reached.