Re: [Fsfe-uk] EUCD for Xbox

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 11:35 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
> I'm not so certain that it wasn't the 80 games installed on the hard
> disk that got him into trouble. 

I suspect it was the entire thing which got him into trouble; it all
sounds completely illegal.

> Is there any way of getting hold of the details of the court case,
> what he was charged with and why he was sentenced that way?

Unlikely. You can get at the Playstation ruling, though:
        http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2680/sony-v-ball.htm

This case was a local Magistrates', you could file for the records but I
doubt Google will get to see them any time soon.

> I also have a feeling, but I am not entirely certain
> that the Xbox mod chips contains portions of the Xbox bios so would be
> breaching Microsofts copyright (I am not an Xbox modder and never have
> been, does anyone know better?).

Even if it does, it doesn't matter - any chip which removes
"anti-copying controls" is illegal, no matter how it does it. Whatever
copyright infringement is also there is entirely incidental.

If you look at the Playstation ruling, there are also a couple of
goodies:

      * notices of compatibility can construe limitations on licence.
        Software that is "PAL compatible" and "licensed for home use"
        may mean you can't legally run this software on an NTSC console,
        even if your console is unmodified.
      * copyright infringement by third parties using the chips is
        irrelevant (I think we more or less knew this)
      * copying software into RAM requires a copyright licence (again,
        most people knew this, some people disputed it though)
      * Ball fell foul of s.296 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
        Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") pre and post EUCD - so although he was
        guilty under the EUCD, he was guilty anyway. I suspect he was
        *more* guilty under the EUCD, though :o)

Cheers,

Alex.