BillytheFIsh
Member
Disclaimer: This is my niche, so a bit of a nerd warning about what is to follow.
I know it's been out for a few days now, but I was kinda distracted on friday and monday, so:
Stevens v Sony [2005] HCA 58
WOOOT!
A win (kinda) against the man for once.
A brief run down for those who have no idea about intellectual property:
If someone installs a technological protection measure, (TPM) which means something which is designed to prevent you copying it, (like the encryption on DVDs, or the dodgy little programs that some record companies put on audio CDs to make them play up when you put them in your computer) then to create, distribute or sell a device that is designed to get around this protection and has very little other commercial purpose can lead to actions for civil damages.
This was the mod chip case.
For those that don't know, in real playstation games, there are codes that the console looks for before playing. As these aren't present on a copy. they won't play.
Therefore, if these codes are considered a TPM, then the mod chip will be a anti-circumvention device and sony has an action.
At first instance, Sackville J said that because the codes didn't actually prevent anyone copying the games, then it was not a TPM.
The Full Federal Court said that it was enough to look at the reality of the situation and although it didn't actually prevent copying, it discouraged copying and that was enough.
The High Court has said that no, to be a TPM, it has to actually itself stop the infringement of copyright.
While this is great for consumers, the problem is, the law has changed since that in question in this case and will change further in line with our AUSFTA.
However, what's probably more interesting to people:
Mod chips were, at that time, legal.
Currently, it's debatable, but they probably are still legal and will continue to be so until they amend the law.
This may mean, however, that Sony throw their weight around when it comes to future amendments. Particularly with regard to the FTA they may kick up a stink in the US and say our copyright law isn't in conformity because of this decision and it needs to be changed to meet the requirements of the FTA.
Anyway, as I said, very interesting and pleasing decision. As this is the first apex court in the world to consider the provisions, what was said could also shape future decisions in the rest of the world.
I know it's been out for a few days now, but I was kinda distracted on friday and monday, so:
Stevens v Sony [2005] HCA 58
WOOOT!
A win (kinda) against the man for once.
A brief run down for those who have no idea about intellectual property:
If someone installs a technological protection measure, (TPM) which means something which is designed to prevent you copying it, (like the encryption on DVDs, or the dodgy little programs that some record companies put on audio CDs to make them play up when you put them in your computer) then to create, distribute or sell a device that is designed to get around this protection and has very little other commercial purpose can lead to actions for civil damages.
This was the mod chip case.
For those that don't know, in real playstation games, there are codes that the console looks for before playing. As these aren't present on a copy. they won't play.
Therefore, if these codes are considered a TPM, then the mod chip will be a anti-circumvention device and sony has an action.
At first instance, Sackville J said that because the codes didn't actually prevent anyone copying the games, then it was not a TPM.
The Full Federal Court said that it was enough to look at the reality of the situation and although it didn't actually prevent copying, it discouraged copying and that was enough.
The High Court has said that no, to be a TPM, it has to actually itself stop the infringement of copyright.
While this is great for consumers, the problem is, the law has changed since that in question in this case and will change further in line with our AUSFTA.
However, what's probably more interesting to people:
Mod chips were, at that time, legal.
Currently, it's debatable, but they probably are still legal and will continue to be so until they amend the law.
This may mean, however, that Sony throw their weight around when it comes to future amendments. Particularly with regard to the FTA they may kick up a stink in the US and say our copyright law isn't in conformity because of this decision and it needs to be changed to meet the requirements of the FTA.
Anyway, as I said, very interesting and pleasing decision. As this is the first apex court in the world to consider the provisions, what was said could also shape future decisions in the rest of the world.
