The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
how do i play USA gamesfor ps2 on my uk machine
Page:
A software license is just like any other contract though, most importantly you can't agree to terms before you are aware of what they are. So if I buy a game and the bit saying it is only for use in, say, Belgium, is tucked away in a manual in the box, or a small note on the rear, that won't matter. I'd have to be clearly informed of it before the purchase otherwise I can’t be said to have agreed to it. All terrifically interesting contact law.
The court would always take the side of the consumer in this kind of issue to as they'd look to the nature of the transaction i.e. a customer buying something in a shop expects to be able to use it how/where they choose. Therefore, Sony would have to make it very clear that you were only allowed to use the game in Belgium before they could hold you to that. The more restrictive or out-of-the-ordinary a clause is, the more care Sony would have to take in insuring you knew about it before purchase (so you could actually agree to it) for it to be held as fair.
Then again, this is a purely hypothetical point as while that's the way a court would view this matter, Sony is never going to take it up. They'll have a more clear cut case against the retailer as (I imagine) they (or the distributor they bought the game from) will have a formal agreement with Sony. So Sony could take action against them, but depending on how the clause was phrased in the agreement there may be problems there too.
Pah, it's all rather inconsequential. Those who want to import can without worries; it's retailers who Sony/whoever would be going for.
The court would always take the side of the consumer in this kind of issue to as they'd look to the nature of the transaction i.e. a customer buying something in a shop expects to be able to use it how/where they choose. Therefore, Sony would have to make it very clear that you were only allowed to use the game in Belgium before they could hold you to that. The more restrictive or out-of-the-ordinary a clause is, the more care Sony would have to take in insuring you knew about it before purchase (so you could actually agree to it) for it to be held as fair.
Then again, this is a purely hypothetical point as while that's the way a court would view this matter, Sony is never going to take it up. They'll have a more clear cut case against the retailer as (I imagine) they (or the distributor they bought the game from) will have a formal agreement with Sony. So Sony could take action against them, but depending on how the clause was phrased in the agreement there may be problems there too.
Pah, it's all rather inconsequential. Those who want to import can without worries; it's retailers who Sony/whoever would be going for.
The way I read it, when you 'buy' a bit of software, whether it be an operating system or a PS2 game, you just buy the licence to use it unless the licence specifically states that what you're getting is freeware. If the licence says you can only use it in a specific territory then that's what you're agreeing to as part of your end user agreement.
But importing games has nothing directly to do with copyright: any breaches are civil in nature and to do with individual agreements between the seller and the purchaser, not a blanket approach from the common law; though this will obviously help interpretation such as CD-Wow's worries about the Tesco and Levis ruling (which simply just protects the validily of such anti-competitive restrictions in the agreements).
The Australian approach is identical to the US - in simple terms you can't sell anything that will aid piracy. This does not mean you can't have a chip to play imports, importing titles for your own uses breaks no law and it is disputable whether it would break any licencing agreement with Sony as at present you aren't informed of the terms until after the purchase, therefore they are clearly void. This seems to be the area you are misreading; nothing can be done to stop an individual importing a game.
Even the realiter selling you the game will never be in breach of any copyright laws; though he could (will) be violating the terms on which he purchased the stock. Those terms are there and valid to protect the true owner's rights (i.e. arises in copyright), however breaching them isn't it's self a copyright issue, it's a simple matter of contract law.
The Australian approach is identical to the US - in simple terms you can't sell anything that will aid piracy. This does not mean you can't have a chip to play imports, importing titles for your own uses breaks no law and it is disputable whether it would break any licencing agreement with Sony as at present you aren't informed of the terms until after the purchase, therefore they are clearly void. This seems to be the area you are misreading; nothing can be done to stop an individual importing a game.
Even the realiter selling you the game will never be in breach of any copyright laws; though he could (will) be violating the terms on which he purchased the stock. Those terms are there and valid to protect the true owner's rights (i.e. arises in copyright), however breaching them isn't it's self a copyright issue, it's a simple matter of contract law.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> The fact is, Australia took a consumer friendly standpoint to begin
> with that should be praised; only to cower in the face of Sony when
> pushed. They saw the region coding practices and anti-competitive,
> this is the one and only reason mod chipping was allowed in the first
> place.
I agree with that entirely. You'll be glad to know that in the Italian case the same issue was brought up, as well as the judge reminding Sony that they wanted the PS2 to be thought of as a computer to avoid taxes, which went towards their final decision to release the seized chipped PS2s.
However, (and I go off topic here now but bear with me):
Sony's PAL/NTSC/JAP territories are there for a valid reason (not just so they can control pricing, which, when you think about it, they need to do considering they still sell their consoles at a loss, which again the Italian judge acknowledged).
It's because each territory likes different games. (The Japanese gamers are notorious for suffering motion sickness and liking their games a little on the easy side). Therefore, if a JAP publisher buys a game from a developer, they licence it for use exclusively in the JAP territory. They know their market. Then the publisher has the choice of either promoting the same game in the other territories, or allowing the developer to licence the game to another publisher outside the territory. The new publisher can then ask the developer to change the game to suit their territory, e.g. make it more difficult, add more levels, make it run faster etc (or slower with borders if you're Capcom) to suit the market.
Resulting in more sales of software than otherwise.
In the 2003 overruling, judges French, Lindgren and Finkelstein ruled that mod chips were circumvention devices (the original judge declared there was effectively nothing to circumvent), and therefore breached section 116A of the Copyright Act. The same Copyright Act that "gives a right of action to the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject matter... against a person who makes, sells, or does certain other acts in relation to, a "circumvention device" capable of circumventing, or facilitating the circumvention of, the technological protection measure."
Here's where the law really falls on it's ass. Australia had only recently relaxed grey importation laws before this ruling. Now they make the supply of mod-chips illegal. Now they say you can use them. Just as long as you don't "do certain other acts in relation to" them, which, under this ruling, would include by its own definition actions such as using them to breach copyright protection. E.g. by using them to play an NTSC exclusively licenced game on an Australian PAL PS2.
In short the law now states:
You can't buy mod-chips in Australia.
Sure, you can have a chipped console.
Sure, you can import from other territories.
You can't use a modded console to play backups or imports.
Strangely enough, the ramifications are still ongoing, S116A of the Copyright Act is still being looked at.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/157.html
http://www.ipjustice.org/123103playstationdecision.html
(Enjoy)
> The fact is, Australia took a consumer friendly standpoint to begin
> with that should be praised; only to cower in the face of Sony when
> pushed. They saw the region coding practices and anti-competitive,
> this is the one and only reason mod chipping was allowed in the first
> place.
I agree with that entirely. You'll be glad to know that in the Italian case the same issue was brought up, as well as the judge reminding Sony that they wanted the PS2 to be thought of as a computer to avoid taxes, which went towards their final decision to release the seized chipped PS2s.
However, (and I go off topic here now but bear with me):
Sony's PAL/NTSC/JAP territories are there for a valid reason (not just so they can control pricing, which, when you think about it, they need to do considering they still sell their consoles at a loss, which again the Italian judge acknowledged).
It's because each territory likes different games. (The Japanese gamers are notorious for suffering motion sickness and liking their games a little on the easy side). Therefore, if a JAP publisher buys a game from a developer, they licence it for use exclusively in the JAP territory. They know their market. Then the publisher has the choice of either promoting the same game in the other territories, or allowing the developer to licence the game to another publisher outside the territory. The new publisher can then ask the developer to change the game to suit their territory, e.g. make it more difficult, add more levels, make it run faster etc (or slower with borders if you're Capcom) to suit the market.
Resulting in more sales of software than otherwise.
In the 2003 overruling, judges French, Lindgren and Finkelstein ruled that mod chips were circumvention devices (the original judge declared there was effectively nothing to circumvent), and therefore breached section 116A of the Copyright Act. The same Copyright Act that "gives a right of action to the owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject matter... against a person who makes, sells, or does certain other acts in relation to, a "circumvention device" capable of circumventing, or facilitating the circumvention of, the technological protection measure."
Here's where the law really falls on it's ass. Australia had only recently relaxed grey importation laws before this ruling. Now they make the supply of mod-chips illegal. Now they say you can use them. Just as long as you don't "do certain other acts in relation to" them, which, under this ruling, would include by its own definition actions such as using them to breach copyright protection. E.g. by using them to play an NTSC exclusively licenced game on an Australian PAL PS2.
In short the law now states:
You can't buy mod-chips in Australia.
Sure, you can have a chipped console.
Sure, you can import from other territories.
You can't use a modded console to play backups or imports.
Strangely enough, the ramifications are still ongoing, S116A of the Copyright Act is still being looked at.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/906.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/ cases/cth/FCAFC/2003/157.html
http://www.ipjustice.org/123103playstationdecision.html
(Enjoy)
homosh wrote:
> so , if I get a good quality chip , the problem with FMV sequances
> won't happen ?
That problem only occured with one game and that was a special case because seeing as the file was so large they had to cut the quality down to be able to fit it onto a disc and so obviously the FMV's suffered. The game was fine but you can't really play a RPG without being able to follow the story, kind of defeats the whole purpose of playing it.
Get the Messiah 2 fitted, that's what i've got and it plays virtually everything no problems. Course i mostly use it to play imports but it plays copies alright too.
> so , if I get a good quality chip , the problem with FMV sequances
> won't happen ?
That problem only occured with one game and that was a special case because seeing as the file was so large they had to cut the quality down to be able to fit it onto a disc and so obviously the FMV's suffered. The game was fine but you can't really play a RPG without being able to follow the story, kind of defeats the whole purpose of playing it.
Get the Messiah 2 fitted, that's what i've got and it plays virtually everything no problems. Course i mostly use it to play imports but it plays copies alright too.
But the Australian case wasn't overturned because of grey imports or "hardware copyright". You can still use mod chips in Australia, you just can’t sell them to bypass copy protection – pretty much now identical in practice to the US legislature.
The fact is, Australia took a consumer friendly standpoint to begin with that should be praised; only to cower in the face of Sony when pushed. They saw the region coding practices and anti-competitive, this is the one and only reason mod chipping was allowed in the first place. They saw how Sony could use this practice to screw consumers, and how mod chipping was the only way around it. It wasn’t a bunch of dodgy mod chip installers who were trying to protect their backs with tenuous arguments either, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission were in full support and carried out investigations used in coming up with the decision. The gentleman involved was rightly punished for selling copied games, but the fact is there are legitimate uses for the chips he was selling and installing, and nothing to stop me doing to my property what I wish.
But then they backed down, and should be ashamed for being so close, but not having the balls when it came to it.
The issue is still the same – it’s not mod chips that break any laws, it is copied games. Importing software as an individual is in no way illegal, and if we allow corporations to push through backdoor rulings via intimidation (like the BPI and CD-Wow last week) all that will happen is prices will artificially rise. What are the reasons for these rises from the industry? Because they can.
The fact is, Australia took a consumer friendly standpoint to begin with that should be praised; only to cower in the face of Sony when pushed. They saw the region coding practices and anti-competitive, this is the one and only reason mod chipping was allowed in the first place. They saw how Sony could use this practice to screw consumers, and how mod chipping was the only way around it. It wasn’t a bunch of dodgy mod chip installers who were trying to protect their backs with tenuous arguments either, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission were in full support and carried out investigations used in coming up with the decision. The gentleman involved was rightly punished for selling copied games, but the fact is there are legitimate uses for the chips he was selling and installing, and nothing to stop me doing to my property what I wish.
But then they backed down, and should be ashamed for being so close, but not having the balls when it came to it.
The issue is still the same – it’s not mod chips that break any laws, it is copied games. Importing software as an individual is in no way illegal, and if we allow corporations to push through backdoor rulings via intimidation (like the BPI and CD-Wow last week) all that will happen is prices will artificially rise. What are the reasons for these rises from the industry? Because they can.
Ooooh, scrap that, £279.99 will get you a universal PS2, it'll play games from anywhere.
homosh wrote:
> so , if I get a good quality chip , the problem with FMV sequances
> won't happen ?
Correct. Now all you have to do is find a good quality chip. There's one called the Emotion Engine that comes free with an NTSC PS2, £199.99 delivered. For an extra £80 it'll play JAP games too.
> so , if I get a good quality chip , the problem with FMV sequances
> won't happen ?
Correct. Now all you have to do is find a good quality chip. There's one called the Emotion Engine that comes free with an NTSC PS2, £199.99 delivered. For an extra £80 it'll play JAP games too.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Law demonstrating clearly once again that it's an ass.
>
> The interesting thing about that comment is that you obviously don't
> know what happened in the cases to make that judgement.
The statement was based on:
The 2002 Australian decision was appealed by Sony, who, 1 year and 4 days later, got the decision not just overturned but managed to get the sale of mod-chips banned altogether in Oz. Hence, judge 1, who got the first decision wrong, was an ass. It also means that Sony AU were one of the few support departments that had to deal with gamers wanting to bypass DNAS with their chipped consoles. (Most Sony Support departments will just say "Shouldn't have chipped it then, should you?", but obviously in a more tactful way).
The 2004 Italian decision was based on sound legal thinking along the lines of "If you can hack an XBox and run Linux on it, why shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want to do with a PS2?" (I'm not translating directly from the Italian but that was the gist of the original Tribunal of Bolzano in camera court transcript).
Hence, once again, the law is an ass. Expect to see that woeful legal judgement overturned within the next 14 months or so, and cringe at the number of Italian PS2 owners who are going to unwittingly chip their consoles over that period then discover that they can't connect to Sony's Network Gaming without some major hassle.
> FantasyMeister wrote:
> Law demonstrating clearly once again that it's an ass.
>
> The interesting thing about that comment is that you obviously don't
> know what happened in the cases to make that judgement.
The statement was based on:
The 2002 Australian decision was appealed by Sony, who, 1 year and 4 days later, got the decision not just overturned but managed to get the sale of mod-chips banned altogether in Oz. Hence, judge 1, who got the first decision wrong, was an ass. It also means that Sony AU were one of the few support departments that had to deal with gamers wanting to bypass DNAS with their chipped consoles. (Most Sony Support departments will just say "Shouldn't have chipped it then, should you?", but obviously in a more tactful way).
The 2004 Italian decision was based on sound legal thinking along the lines of "If you can hack an XBox and run Linux on it, why shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want to do with a PS2?" (I'm not translating directly from the Italian but that was the gist of the original Tribunal of Bolzano in camera court transcript).
Hence, once again, the law is an ass. Expect to see that woeful legal judgement overturned within the next 14 months or so, and cringe at the number of Italian PS2 owners who are going to unwittingly chip their consoles over that period then discover that they can't connect to Sony's Network Gaming without some major hassle.
so , if I get a good quality chip , the problem with FMV sequances won't happen ?
Page: