PS2 Info - ChannelTech lose in court!
24 January 2002 | 06:30 PM
#1
Well,Here's what Gazza posted on the www.channeltechnology.com website earlier......
HE'S NOT THE MESSIAH, HE'S A VERY NAUGHTY MARTYR !
Judge Jacob kicked the Messiah around the courtroom like a football today (23 / 01 / 02) and in the process, made some interesting comments:
Jacob Dean made a terrific defense of the Messiah on the basis that, under the Design's Copyright's and Patent's Act 1988, the upgrade was not 'specifically' designed to circumvent the copy-protection mechanism of the PS2 console, but also dealt with defeating the region control aspect of the same protection, and thus allowed arguably legal functions such as the use of imported games. Also, with respect to the copy-protection mechanism, the use of open software development would be enabled should it be defeated, and the monopolization of the console which currently only allows software licensed by Sony to be run would be stopped, an important factor for consideration. Sony's lawyers faced some difficult problems, but worked fluently with their front man Adrian Speck, Sony's representing barrister and fought back admirably from many tight corners, resulting in the following decision:
Judge Jacob made the following ruling:
The Messiah defeated the Copy-Protection mechanism, and this part of the design SPECIFICALLY was dealing with the use of backup material as a function. The judge acknowledged that indeed it may be useful to have a backup of software as allowed under the CDPA 1988, and there could possibly be cases of 'where necessary', but also the aspect of 'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game, therefore 'piracy' becomes the main factor for consideration above all other.
Therefore on this basis alone, Judge Jacob awarded the Summary Judgment to Sony
The Judge also made a statement on importing of games:
Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the licensed territory, this argument should be upheld. The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony. Basically, this 'controversial' statement made it illegal to play games purchased from abroad.
This statement could also have implications for the DVD market, as certainly the licensing aspects of imported entertainment media would indeed come under the scrutiny of the Sony v's Channel Technology case. DVD's are licensed regionalized digital entertainment media, and also buffer copyright data into memory whilst playing. There are many multi-region modifications for DVD Players available, should the statements of Judge Jacob be acted upon....hhhhmmm. DVD's are also protected by an encryption method known as CSS, although this is not an anti-copy protection, it may be relevant in the case of using CSS (or rather its freely illegally available form known DeCSS) to produce playback equipment or software that allows imported media to run due to the fact that again, a copy of the digital copyright data must be buffered into memory whilst playing back the media. It may also be argued that DVD media is not licensed for playback via unauthorized use of copyright encryption, therefore resulting again in an unauthorized copy of data in memory, possibly even affecting DVD's from the correct region, this resulting again in legal implications. It is doubtful that the above issues would be contested unless commercial infringement is a factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case were NEO TECHNOLOGIES (1st and 2nd), and CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY (3rd), it was presented to Judge Jacob that NEO had submitted to summary Judgment and therefore was not an issue to be dealt with by the court, but CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY had resisted summary judgment and therefore a case against CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY must be argued.
The outcome of the summary judgment against CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY was an order of various limitations of which an affidavit must be made, and also the following costs:
LEGAL FEE'S: £45,000 (after discount)
DAMAGES: £15,000 (on the basis of supplied upgrades)
It is unknown as to the restrictions or financial penalties imposed upon NEO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF 'GAZZA'
This was an untested area of law in the UK, and Channel Technology resisted summary judgment on the basis of the legal functions that could be gained from such a device as the Messiah. The decision gained in Sony's favor is undeniably correct, Channel Technology does not deny that the device could be used for the use of illegal games, and did not contest this matter at any time, it simply made argument on technical matters in respect-of, and the arguably legal functions that are restricted from the implementation of such copy-protection methods. The fact that Sony sells CD-Recording devices is obviously a similar argument, for any company to deny knowledge that it's equipment could be used for illegal purposes would be farcical, and indeed, CD-Recorders are the root of CD based piracy. However, companies selling such devices are not under the scrutiny of the CDPA 1988 in respect of circumvention (unless possibly selling software or hardware capable of by-passing protection systems implemented on original media) and therefore are afforded the right to do so. When the industry collapses within itself from it's own 'backstabbing' of producing recorders and recordable media, as well as entertainment media that people would wish to record for multitudes of reasons, then possibly the corporations will wake up to the reality of the world, and the way the world functions. The number of free spirits in society will far outnumber the amount of courtroom casualties these corporations will have to their accounts.
Channel Technology has been at the forefront of upgrade design, working in conjunction with colleagues to bring forward technical innovations for many years, the business has enjoyed a prosperous existence,
therefore it must be thankful to Sony for providing this opportunity.
As the proprietor of the business, I must speak honestly that being involved with this aspect over the years has afforded me a comfortable living, I walk away from this without any ill-feelings towards Sony whatsoever. It can be difficult to weigh your balance of morals when satisfying so many customers and receiving such rewards, having lived on the basis of 'enjoy it while it lasts', and it surely has lasted longer than expected !
The line is now drawn in the sand in the UK, everyone involved in matters relating to modifications to equipment that plays licensed regional and copy-protected material in digital form that produces a copy in memory must now decide which side of the line they stand.
The market for such modification devices is surely now going to be driven underground.
I wish to thank Julian Midgly and his colleague Martin of Eurorights.org for attending the high courts and providing a substantial amount of advice,
it was an interesting case and everyone learned a lot from it.
It's the end of an era ?
I personally think it's the beginning of a new era, a new war, Channel Technology and Neo being the first casualties, there will be many more to come !
Thanks to everyone's support over the years, we hope we have made many people happy,
but if your in the same line of business, re-think your strategies, Judge Jacob is severely unforgiving :-) !
GAZZA
Not good news uh? (Glad I got mine already though!!!
) 
Nick..
HE'S NOT THE MESSIAH, HE'S A VERY NAUGHTY MARTYR !
Judge Jacob kicked the Messiah around the courtroom like a football today (23 / 01 / 02) and in the process, made some interesting comments:
Jacob Dean made a terrific defense of the Messiah on the basis that, under the Design's Copyright's and Patent's Act 1988, the upgrade was not 'specifically' designed to circumvent the copy-protection mechanism of the PS2 console, but also dealt with defeating the region control aspect of the same protection, and thus allowed arguably legal functions such as the use of imported games. Also, with respect to the copy-protection mechanism, the use of open software development would be enabled should it be defeated, and the monopolization of the console which currently only allows software licensed by Sony to be run would be stopped, an important factor for consideration. Sony's lawyers faced some difficult problems, but worked fluently with their front man Adrian Speck, Sony's representing barrister and fought back admirably from many tight corners, resulting in the following decision:
Judge Jacob made the following ruling:
The Messiah defeated the Copy-Protection mechanism, and this part of the design SPECIFICALLY was dealing with the use of backup material as a function. The judge acknowledged that indeed it may be useful to have a backup of software as allowed under the CDPA 1988, and there could possibly be cases of 'where necessary', but also the aspect of 'swapping' of backup disks between people would be uncontrollable, and damaging to Sony as nobody would obviously pay £25-45 for a game, therefore 'piracy' becomes the main factor for consideration above all other.
Therefore on this basis alone, Judge Jacob awarded the Summary Judgment to Sony
The Judge also made a statement on importing of games:
Judge Jacob stated that Sony licensed games for the territory that they were issued, the licensing of these games did not allow for their use in other territories, therefore whether they were imported for private and domestic use by personal purchase for instance via the internet, or purchased abroad on holiday, they were not allowed by Sony to be played outside of the licensed territory, this argument should be upheld. The technical reason for the decision being based upon the fact that a game that is run without permission makes a copy of copyright material in memory, this copy is 'infringing' because it is an unauthorized copy argued Sony. Basically, this 'controversial' statement made it illegal to play games purchased from abroad.
This statement could also have implications for the DVD market, as certainly the licensing aspects of imported entertainment media would indeed come under the scrutiny of the Sony v's Channel Technology case. DVD's are licensed regionalized digital entertainment media, and also buffer copyright data into memory whilst playing. There are many multi-region modifications for DVD Players available, should the statements of Judge Jacob be acted upon....hhhhmmm. DVD's are also protected by an encryption method known as CSS, although this is not an anti-copy protection, it may be relevant in the case of using CSS (or rather its freely illegally available form known DeCSS) to produce playback equipment or software that allows imported media to run due to the fact that again, a copy of the digital copyright data must be buffered into memory whilst playing back the media. It may also be argued that DVD media is not licensed for playback via unauthorized use of copyright encryption, therefore resulting again in an unauthorized copy of data in memory, possibly even affecting DVD's from the correct region, this resulting again in legal implications. It is doubtful that the above issues would be contested unless commercial infringement is a factor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case were NEO TECHNOLOGIES (1st and 2nd), and CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY (3rd), it was presented to Judge Jacob that NEO had submitted to summary Judgment and therefore was not an issue to be dealt with by the court, but CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY had resisted summary judgment and therefore a case against CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY must be argued.
The outcome of the summary judgment against CHANNEL TECHNOLOGY was an order of various limitations of which an affidavit must be made, and also the following costs:
LEGAL FEE'S: £45,000 (after discount)
DAMAGES: £15,000 (on the basis of supplied upgrades)
It is unknown as to the restrictions or financial penalties imposed upon NEO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF 'GAZZA'
This was an untested area of law in the UK, and Channel Technology resisted summary judgment on the basis of the legal functions that could be gained from such a device as the Messiah. The decision gained in Sony's favor is undeniably correct, Channel Technology does not deny that the device could be used for the use of illegal games, and did not contest this matter at any time, it simply made argument on technical matters in respect-of, and the arguably legal functions that are restricted from the implementation of such copy-protection methods. The fact that Sony sells CD-Recording devices is obviously a similar argument, for any company to deny knowledge that it's equipment could be used for illegal purposes would be farcical, and indeed, CD-Recorders are the root of CD based piracy. However, companies selling such devices are not under the scrutiny of the CDPA 1988 in respect of circumvention (unless possibly selling software or hardware capable of by-passing protection systems implemented on original media) and therefore are afforded the right to do so. When the industry collapses within itself from it's own 'backstabbing' of producing recorders and recordable media, as well as entertainment media that people would wish to record for multitudes of reasons, then possibly the corporations will wake up to the reality of the world, and the way the world functions. The number of free spirits in society will far outnumber the amount of courtroom casualties these corporations will have to their accounts.
Channel Technology has been at the forefront of upgrade design, working in conjunction with colleagues to bring forward technical innovations for many years, the business has enjoyed a prosperous existence,
therefore it must be thankful to Sony for providing this opportunity.
As the proprietor of the business, I must speak honestly that being involved with this aspect over the years has afforded me a comfortable living, I walk away from this without any ill-feelings towards Sony whatsoever. It can be difficult to weigh your balance of morals when satisfying so many customers and receiving such rewards, having lived on the basis of 'enjoy it while it lasts', and it surely has lasted longer than expected !
The line is now drawn in the sand in the UK, everyone involved in matters relating to modifications to equipment that plays licensed regional and copy-protected material in digital form that produces a copy in memory must now decide which side of the line they stand.
The market for such modification devices is surely now going to be driven underground.
I wish to thank Julian Midgly and his colleague Martin of Eurorights.org for attending the high courts and providing a substantial amount of advice,
it was an interesting case and everyone learned a lot from it.
It's the end of an era ?
I personally think it's the beginning of a new era, a new war, Channel Technology and Neo being the first casualties, there will be many more to come !
Thanks to everyone's support over the years, we hope we have made many people happy,
but if your in the same line of business, re-think your strategies, Judge Jacob is severely unforgiving :-) !
GAZZA
Not good news uh? (Glad I got mine already though!!!
) Nick..
24 January 2002 | 07:37 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Bugger!!
the fat cats win again!!!!
I bet some money from sony went to a few backhanders!!!!
This is what puts people off taking big companies to court,they normally lose,is this the case of money talking?
I hope 000000's of other modchip developers appear and give sony huge problems!!!
Glad i got my Neo4,Bet your glad Nick that you finally got your Messiah.
Underground mod's here we come
the fat cats win again!!!!
I bet some money from sony went to a few backhanders!!!!
This is what puts people off taking big companies to court,they normally lose,is this the case of money talking?
I hope 000000's of other modchip developers appear and give sony huge problems!!!
Glad i got my Neo4,Bet your glad Nick that you finally got your Messiah
.Underground mod's here we come
25 January 2002 | 11:06 AM
#4
I sure am glad I got my messiah Duncan!!!!!!!
In fact,my mate just finished chipping the last one outta the three machines last night.For info,Version 3 mainboards are the hardest to install Messiahs,V4's are a little easier and apparently V5's are the easiest!!!!
As Daz quite rightly points out,all this chip stuff will now go underground and just cos CT failed,doesn't mean the chips won't surface! Picture the scenario - Lots of people from all around the world have put a lot of money and effort into these chips (And probably blown quite a few PS2's up in the process!
)and just cos sony do this to CT,you can't tell me everyone's gonna stop production and distribution of em???
I'm off to a computer fair tomorrow,and I bet they have em for sale there!!!!
Nick..
[Edited by NickAdams - 1/25/2002 10:12:33 AM]
In fact,my mate just finished chipping the last one outta the three machines last night.For info,Version 3 mainboards are the hardest to install Messiahs,V4's are a little easier and apparently V5's are the easiest!!!!
As Daz quite rightly points out,all this chip stuff will now go underground and just cos CT failed,doesn't mean the chips won't surface! Picture the scenario - Lots of people from all around the world have put a lot of money and effort into these chips (And probably blown quite a few PS2's up in the process!
)and just cos sony do this to CT,you can't tell me everyone's gonna stop production and distribution of em??? I'm off to a computer fair tomorrow,and I bet they have em for sale there!!!!
Nick..
[Edited by NickAdams - 1/25/2002 10:12:33 AM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post