Talk:Modchip/Archive 1

Dreamcast
Sega Dreamcast does have a hardware copy protection system. It's just that the system BIOS has a back door that allows it to boot games from regular CDs. Xbox has a similar back door, but in order to use the back door, you must be able to "sign" the code as being allowed to use it - not going to happen any time soon.

-- Myria 05:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it would also be interesting to include some discussion of some of the dangers of using modchips (premature laser failure, bad solder=broken console)
 * Agreed. I am about to mod my PlayStation 2 (I live in Australia), and I wanted to know the dangers of modding. Can anyone elaborate on this? YazzaMatazza 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DS modchips
Someone added a bit on the DS and these supposed modchips that load DS roms from the GBA slot. I'm aware of this procedure, but it is done through Passme decives, not modchips. If I am mistaken and there is a DS modchip, maybe that part should be sourced. Otherwise, I'm removing the paragraph. --Thaddius 16:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember reading somewhere that it is possible to make a passme device by modifying a normal DS game cartridge. Thats tough to give a category, I think the Nintendo DS part should be put back into the article as its more relevant to the article than softmodding on an xbox. 211.28.237.112 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The passme device is not a modhip. Read the passme page for some clarification. --Thaddius 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising
There are some elements of this article (eg the last link in the links section) that look like advertising, should they be removed or are they genuinely useful? Jamamala 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph
The first paragraph makes it seem as if modchips are used just to be able to play pirated games and such, but it doesn't mention that oftentimes people do it to extend the capability of whatever they are modding.

Australian legality
"(...) the law does say that if a chip bypasses copyright protection as well as regional protection, then it is legal. (...)" Please back up this very important statement with a citation of the respective law or remove the paragraph entirely. I myself will refrain from editing this paragraph any more, as it is constantly being laced with incorrect and suppositious information that I can only assume stems from wishful thinking. 85.181.68.2 13:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation to the case of Stevens vs Sony *is* in the section, and it refers to Australian copyright law as well as passing references to anti-competitive behaviours (which is why the ACCC - the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission - got involved). The paragraph is correct and a reading of the legal case linked will show that there's no wishful thinking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Read beyond the first line, please. Stevens vs. Sony has never been relevant to modchips in general (see §179 of the court ruling's full text). And even if it would have been, applicable laws have changed considerably with the Copyright Amendment Act of 2006. It might be hard to accept, but Stevens vs. Sony is of no consequence to the current legal situation. 62.225.78.186 13:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have updated this damn article three times and each time I go back the ESA has deleted the information I implemented. Modchips of all kinds are legal in Australia, FACT. Bypassing copyright protection in order to bypass regional protection is legal, FACT. Somebody needs to ban these idiots from Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, read the friggin source I keep providing and call the Australian Attorney Generals office. Not everybody lives in the USA, laws are different in Australia. Stop spreading ignorance you bafoon! Copyright Amendment Act of 2006, as found on the Federal Attorney Generals website. 

'''You are wrong, plain and simple. My brother currently operates a console repair store and he also sells modchips upon request. He operates in the Brisbane CBD and displays a sign outside of his shop reading "MOD CHIPS FOR BACKUPS AVAILABLE". He has received legal advice numerous times from the Attorney General and three different lawyers. Each time he has been told that provided the chips he sells also bypass regional coding, then they are legal. It is as simple as that, give it up. You lose this round. Don't bother arguing about it because the law is the law. If you delete my entry again I will be reporting you for vandalism.''' MikeZombie777 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interrupt. Seeing from your editing history, you are mixing up modchips that "also bypass regional coding" with modchips that "have to bypass TPM/ACTPM to be able to bypass regional coding". The latter being legal, the former ... not so much. Take a close look at the documents provided to your brother, and please note that very subtle wording can make a big difference. Please do also note that obviously three different people are editing "your entry" (whereever the tenure may come from), one of them being an identified Wikipedia member. Also, have you read the excellent "recommended reading" article, written by an Australian Law PhD, by the way? And do you really have to yell to make your point? And, please start signing your input here. 62.225.78.186 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "because the law is the law". Again: State where the law says what, if it's the law it shouldn't be such a problem to present a law text. No, this does not include news clippings and lawyers' interpretations (even the Attorney-Generals' opinion doesn't count very much if a judge decides otherwise). If you cannot present authoritative sources please leave any conclusions (such as "this and that is legal") out of the article. In its present state it is only stating facts, and as such is very neutral - even to your and your brothers' cause.
 * And please stop writing in bold, this is not a contest about who's louder. 85.181.74.232 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'''I am referring modchips in which have to bypass TPM/ACTPM to be able to bypass regional coding. This is what I would like to be included in the Australian Legality section. I don't suppose it ever crossed your mind to dig up the legislation yourself, did it? Instead you're just sitting here telling me it's illegal when reforms implemented last year have specifically made it LEGAL. Regardless, I've provided enough sources and I don't see any reason to provide more. The Attorney General has said that it is legal, various lawyers have said it is legal, so I think enough is enough. These specialized people are far more qualified to pass judgment on the law than any of you on Wikipedia are, so just give it a rest. By the way, all three of you have been reported for vandalism.'''

MikeZombie777 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mike,
 * "modchips of all kinds are totally legal in Australia", these are exactly your words (Revision as of 09:47, 23 August 2007). We told you that's wrong, you insisted it's right, calling us ESA employees.
 * Then you write "provided the chips (...) also bypass regional coding, then they are legal". We told you that's wrong, you insisted it's right, calling us vandalists.
 * Finally, for the last half dozen revisions, the article said "This legal status extends to mod-chips which have to circumvent a TPM/ACTPM mechanism in order to circumvent regional protection." Which, in other words, means: "Modchips that bypass TPM/ACTPM to be able to bypass regional coding are legal." And now you yell at us again, that this is what you want in the article? We have finally arrived on common ground and still you yell at us, reporting us for vandalism?
 * You are advising us to "dig up the legislation" (which I did, I read the full text. Did you?), and on the other hand the only sources you constantly provide are not legislation but news clippings and exposure drafts?
 * What am I not getting here?
 * Unlike you, calling us ignorant and bafoons, I'm really trying hard not to get ad hominem here. But I can't help but wonder whether you are not able or not willing to understand the article's text, the revision history notes and our input on this talk page. 85.181.98.201 00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
To my knowledge, the alleged "reporting for vandalism" hasn't actually happened, at least not in the appropriate place. I've been trying to ignore this spat, as I do for most unproductive discussion, but this is just to let other editors opposing the addition of unsourced commentary to the article (who are in the majority) know not to be intimidated. Chris Cunningham 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm sorry but it "has" happened. I'm really tired of debating it, I know the facts so like it or lump it. Do any of you actually live in Australia? Or are you just arrogant Americans thinking you know everything about anything? You think that you know everything one could know because of that Bachelor's degree, don't you? I provided many sources, accept it or live in a dream world, it's your decision but either way you're still quite simply; wrong. If you would like to continue to contribute false information to Wikipedia then by all means edit everything on the site to accord with your own personal view. End of discussion. MikeZombie777 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought that if you were capable of parsing my user page for ammunition you'd at least have noticed that I'm not an "arrogant American", but you're right; this is the end of discussion, unless you're able to come up with a better argument for keeping those references (and the commentary they were related to). I have no opinion on whether or not copyright circumvention is legal in case X in Australia, I'm just trying to make sure policy is followed (which means that statements made in articles should be reliably and accurately sourced, and that Wikipedians shouldn't be advancing arguments which aren't directly made by sourced material). Chris Cunningham 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsitent terminology
I couldn't help but notice that in the Sega Saturn section, but no where else in the article, it refers to illegally copied games as "backups". Something should probably be changed here.


 * Maybe you should actually do a search (CTRL-F) in the article. The word "backup" appears in the intro, multiple times in the PlayStation summary, and in the Dreamcast summary. Also, the legality of such copies depends on the exact context of their creation and usage, pertinent to the laws in each country, so categorically referring to them as "illegal" is a(nother) baseless assumption. Ham Pastrami 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Major issues in "Legality"
I have seen many oversimplifications and plain wrong information when it comes to legal status in some countries, and I'd very much like to improve that. I started with the section on Italy's court ruling, putting some things in perspective. Next up, I'll try to clear up the obviously sensitive matter of Australian legality, which is still misleading at best.

Is there a special reason why the EUCD -- the "European Copyright Directive", Europe's version of the DCMA which has been adopted by all EU states but Sweden and Spain -- is not even mentioned anywhere? FreddyYak! 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another try to clear up Australian legality
I realize that Australian legality is a sensitive issue (see the heated discussion above), but the section was inaccurate at best. I moved the outdated court ruling down and put it into perspective with old and new legislation. I elaborated on the first paragraph which actually didn't make any statements regarding legality. And, above all, I corrected the sentence about the legality of modchips circumventing both copyright and region protection mechanisms, which was misleading as it declared this practice legal (which, unless a court rules otherwise, it isn't, see first paragraph). If any issues arise with my edit, I hope they can be resolved in a mature manner (unlike, again, see discussion above). --FreddyTalk 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)