Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

November 10, 2009

A UK man found guilty in 2008 of installing mod chips into Xbox, PlayStation, PlayStation 2 and GameCube consoles has seen an appeal of his conviction denied.

Christopher Paul Gilham sold the hacked consoles, which enabled users to play counterfeit games, from October 2003 through January 2006.

The appeal focused on the issue of “whether the playing of a counterfeit DVD involves substantial copying of a copyright work.” Following some discourse on the term “substantial,” the Court wrote:

The various drawings that result in the images shown on the television screen or monitor are themselves artistic works protected by copyright. The images shown on the screen are copies, and substantial copies, of those works. If the game is the well-known Tomb Raider, for example, the screen displays Lara Croft, a recognisable character who has been created by the labour and skill of the original artist.

The Court concluded that:

It is not necessary in future to show that a substantial copy of the game is made in Random Access Memory (RAM), all that needs to be shown is that some copyright work contained within the videogame is substantially copied e.g. the image of a game character.

The Entertainment and Leisure Publishers Association (ELSPA) applauded the decision, saying that it welcomed the copyright clarification.

ELSPA Director General Michael Rawlinson added:

Protecting intellectual property (IP) theft is an important issue for the country’s videogames industry. This judgment strengthens copyright law and will be a significant step in helping us protect the industry.

Text from the full judgment can be viewed here.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

Sounds like this would be in the gray area.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court
He profited off of copyright infringement, how is that gray?
Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

Well, the 'grey' would be that he was not doing any copyright infringment himself (unlike people who, say, pre-load a console with pirated titles after chipping it for sale).

Reading over the actual motion, it is a little scary.  The court notes that mod chips have other uses, but then dirrectly says they are irrelevent.  They also state that the defendents intentions are irrelevent.

The law is looking purely at what other people are able to do with the chips after they leave the defendent's supervion.  Which if it was anything other then IP would be laughed out of court.

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

Technically he enabled the possibility, but did not directly infringe upon any IP. While I wouldn't be suprised if 90% of his sales probably went towards modding consoles with the intent to play pirated games; all he did was sell a small electrical component.

Is it the fault of the store you bought the crowbar at if you killed a person with it?

So long as the item in question can perform legal functions, does not directly harm anyones health or well being through legal use, and does not break any existing laws (Dam you DMCA in the US) then I find it hard to believe you can inherently ban things like this. Of course it also depends on the power of the courts; what law did the court find him in violation of? I'm not familiar with the UK's judicial system but can judges there just make up rulings through vague associations?(US has this problem pretty often. Irks me to no end.)

If they want to get anyone it should be the suppliers of the copied games; there should be no real defense or potential rights infringements there.

 

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

Heh, current copyright law is the exact same thing as taking out a phone booth with a nuke. It gets the job done but a LOT of innocent people are harmed in the process.

Wars, weather on a battle field or in a courtroom, always harm the innocent. Perhaps we should outlaw cars. They're not intended for illegal purposes, but one getaway or one hit and run should be reason enough for a ban, amirite?

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

It seems the next step along this ludicrous line of reasoning would be for courts to decide that game publishers are free to sue computer monitor manufacturers for infringement, for every computer monitor used in gaming is displaying substantial copies of copyrighted characters and designs. If installing mod chips constitutes infringement due to the fact that a mod chip makes possible the unauthorized display of copyrighted material, then so must the making and selling of computer monitors be considered an infringing activity. Furthermore, if the fact that mod chips have legitimate uses (homebrew/imports) is irrelevant, then so must the fact that computer monitors can be used for non-infringing activities such as displaying your own content.

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

You're such a tool.  Equating a standard output device to modifying a console so that it can play pirated games and unzoned discs it completely asinine.

---

He was dead when I got here.

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

I must admit, your rationale is very compelling. Your use of the word "completely" in "completely asinine" is truly what clinches the argument, I think.

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

And they say that Australia is backwards for our ratings system  (which is admittedly somewhat backwards). At least our parallel import laws allow us to chip consoles for region lock circumvention. 

Re: Console Modder’s Appeal Tossed in UK Court

A shame the media mafia managed to buy off another verdict.... Hardware modification is not infringement of any kind its consumers staying smart.Go after those selling software/media illicitly and nothing more.


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Login or register to post shouts