🚀 go-pugleaf

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> 
> Benny Cemoli wrote:
> 
>>  From the government's own summation of the AUSFTA;
>>
>> "Sony has also been active in the US, using DMCA litigation or the 
>> threat of it to stop software developers allowing Sony games to be 
>> played on ordinary PCs, and likewise for other games to be played on 
>> Sony Playstations.(52) Restrictions on encryption have the immediate 
>> effect of denying a lot of the �fair use� exemptions that normally 
>> apply under copyright legislation"
> 
> 
> I wish people would post case citations rather than annecdotes.

And I wish people wouldn't shill for greedy corporates. Looks like we're 
both fresh out of luck...

Read the origin. It's a quote from one of the reports commissioned by 
the government to evaluate the AUSFTA.

> 
> I did find http://www.estoel.com/resources/eb_cases.shtm which seems to 
> show that Sony ultimately lost this case, and presumably wouldn't persue 
> a similar case against someone doing the same thing.

Sony now own the rights to the emulation software. I suspect you're 
right that they wouldn't pursue a case against themselves. I doubt 
whether a small developer in competition with them would be so fortunate.

> 
> In any case, I'm far from clear why one should expect to buy a Sony 
> Playstation game and then be morally entitled to play it on other hardware.

If I buy a nail I believe I have the right to hit it with whatever 
hammer I chose. Or with any other hardware in my toolkit for that 
matter. It's MY nail.

> 
>>
>> "Whatever the legal issues involved, it is clear that at least some of 
>> the industry practices are designed more to maximise profits than 
>> prevent piracy."
>>
>> "There have been other overseas examples where the MDCA approach has 
>> had the effect of stifling innovation and/or competition. For example, 
>> an adaptation that allowed users of Apple Macintosh computers to work 
>> with external DVD recorders meant that users did not need to buy a new 
>> Apple Macintosh in order to use a DVD recorder. Apple claimed that 
>> this was a violation of the MDCA and stopped the sale of the upgrade."
> 
> 
> The creator of the upgrade was an Apple dealer, who caved in immediately 
> to avoid compromising their relationship with Apple. The merits of the 
> case were never examined.
> 
> Yes, if you buckle as soon as someone mentions DMCA, then you give power 
> to others, but that's not really a problem with the legislation.

<Sarcasm> Well, if you'd like to point out whose problem it really is, 
we'll have a go at them then. </Sarcasm>

Of course it's a problem with the legislation. If a law makes it unclear 
what rights and responsibilities exist within its ambit then it's a 
poorly written, ill considered piece of legislation.

> 
> Sylvia.
>