modding systems?

[joe81]

does anyone know if it is legal or illegal to mod your systems my roomate and i argued about if it was or wasn't? i think it's legal.

 

[Cloud121]

Yes it is legal. It's YOUR console, you can do what you want with it. However, what you do with the mod, that depends. If it's for imports and backups, no problem. If it's for "backups" of games you don't own, then it's use it deemed illegal.

 

[Pearl Jammzz]

As long as it doesn't contain any copyrighted code (I think that makes XBox modchips illegal) then it's cool. As for backups, I think technically it's illegal to do so, but who is gunna get a warrant to search yer hosue for illegal backups?

 

[Protosstic]

Pearl Jammzz It only makes the software on the Xbox Modchip illegal, and since they are ALL Flashable, as long as a legal bios is on the modchip, then it is perfectly fine (Such as Cromwell)..

Cheers matez!

 

[Pearl Jammzz]

Aye, my bad....I was thinking after u put the BIOS and shit on. But ya, he's right. To my knowledge u can't do much of anything w/ the cromwell can ya?

 

[Dyne]

correct me if im wrong but i thought Australia was the only place modding was legal.

 

[Protosstic]

u can do a linux thing with cromwell, hehe 🙂

 

[antime]

First off, if you want reliable info on the issue, ask an attorney.

As I understand it, modchips which can be used to circumvent copy protection are not legal in the US. The Isonews guy was jailed last year for selling XBox chips and Sony have been granted preliminary injunctions against companies importing Playstation chips. The issue here is section 1201 of the DMCA which specifically prohibits the circumvention of copy protection and also prohibits making or selling anything which can be determined to primarily circumvent copy protection even if there are other, legit uses.

As far as the Australian case, Sony won the appeal and while using modchips may still be legal, selling them isn't.

 

[it290]

The trouble is in those words 'primarily designed to circumvent copy protection' .. there has been a lot of argument about that, because many have argued that mod chips are primarily designed to allow booting of imports. There is also the argument about fair use of backups. I'm not sure if the precedents have really been set for this in the US at this point, if anyone can point me to some cases where these points have been exhaustively argued (for mod chips specifically), I'd appreciate it.

 

[ExCyber]

specifically prohibits the circumvention of copy protection

It does not specify "copy protection". IIRC, the phrase used is "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this Title". It may seem like an academic distinction, but it's quite possible that some copy protections might not qualify as access controls under this law, and some access controls that you would not think of as "copy protections" would qualify.

First off, if you want reliable info on the issue, ask an attorney.

I doubt that even attorneys could give truly reliable info on Sec. 1201, except for reliable ways to avoid it by not touching anything related to it with a ten-foot pole.

 

[it290]

Again, that goes back to the 'primarily designed' thing.

 

[Gallstaff]

Then why are CD-R's still legal. Oh right because so many people are using them to back up music they paied for.

 

[joe81]

my primary reason for using writable cds is for school work and for pictures that and also putting my short movies on them

 

[ExCyber]

Generally speaking, a CD-R can't kill an access control, so it probably wouldn't fall under Sec. 1201. It's not stuff that's "primarily designed for copyright infringement", it's stuff that's "primarily designed to defeat protection mechanisms" (this ostensibly includes region locks, time limits, keyfiles, etc, not just stuff like SafeDisc).