Dude Busted For Selling Modified PSPs

12 responses to “Dude Busted For Selling Modified PSPs”

1. 

   Shane

   June 2, 2011 at 8:26 am

   “I did this for my livelihood. Make no mistake.”

   Unparalleled legal defence there. Using the rarely-invoked legal loophole whereby if you choose to violate copyright, it’s okay as long as you’re making a living wage off it. Very daring.

   Reply
   1. 

      RufusLives

      June 2, 2011 at 8:55 am

      Okay, I’m not 100% sure of how it stands in Japan, but having or selling a modded PSP isn’t violating copyright. If he sold them with a SD card full of new releases THEN he is violating copyright!

      Reply
      1. 

         Boo

         June 2, 2011 at 9:10 am

         It’s a violation of anti-circumvention law, which is under copyright law.

         Reply
         1. 

            RufusLives

            June 2, 2011 at 9:29 am

            Not quite. If the end user uses the device to circumvent copyright that is an issue.

            As a modded PSP owner who is currently replaying the PSP port of the homebrew game Cave Story I gotta say a modded PSP is an improved PSP… and it’s legal.

            Reply
            1. 

               Boo

               June 2, 2011 at 9:48 am

               What? I’m sorry but your analysis is wrong. It’s illegal to sell modified consoles as it is against anti-circumvention law.

               For instance, under s.1201(2) of the DMCA

               (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

               (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

               (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

               (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

               It’s obvious that the seller is selling these modified PSPs to offer services to customers to pirate games.

            2. 

               RufusLives

               June 2, 2011 at 10:03 am

               Well, first up, DMCA is US only, though obviously there is some law in Japan that is similar. I know it is LEGAL in Australia to modify and sell modified consoles though I doubt this state of affairs will continue.

               But frankly, assuming someone is selling a device expressly so people can pirate is a stretch. Considering how easy it is to mod a PSP can we assume the EB Games knows that there customers may well use a brand new PSP for piracy, therefore they are facilitating piracy?

               Yes, I am sure many of his customers used the PSPs he sold for dubious purposes, however he is not responsible for their actions, just like EB is not responsible if you choose to modify a console after purchase.

            3. 

               Dominique

               June 2, 2011 at 10:31 am

               Um sorry to burst your bubble but it isnt legal to modify consoles in Australia after the amendments made in 2006 by the AUSTFA. Read up s.10(1) of the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) as it mirrors that of the DMCA.

               Secondly,, other countries, such as the UK, have deemed selling modified consoles as illegal regardless of the intent of the seller. The mere fact that the seller knowingly circumvents the DRM in the console and make a commercial profit out of it is enough to warrant criminal sanctions. The after effect of reproduction is NOT the burden of proof anymore.

               Thirdly, I don’t really know why you’re going on about EB Games as they don’t really sell their PSPs as modified. The Copyright Act 2006 clearly states that it is only illegal to sell modified consoles or offer services to modify the consoles. If the consumer wants to modify it and the seller has suspicions, then the consumer is at fault, not the seller.

            4. 

               Effluvium Boy

               June 2, 2011 at 10:07 am

               Best. Rebuttal. Ever.

            5. 

               RufusLives

               June 2, 2011 at 10:58 am

               I stand corrected, but only because PSP games are not region restricted (which would legitimise the use of mods in Australia under the amendment).

               I’ll go back to quietly seething about the continual eroding away of our ability to expand the capabilities of devices purchased for personal use and entertainment!

            6. 

               nufstuf

               September 27, 2011 at 4:20 am

               If the law says he is wrong for simply enabling homebrew then the law is in fact the one who is wrong.

               He most likely has done nothing to cause direct harm, in fact he has only increased the companies user base and its potential buyers… the rub is they (Sony et al) still have to convince people $40-60 is good value for any particular game…

               Having played a lot of these games I can safely say its a complete rip off with 95% of them.

               And I would also DARE to say if the Nintendo DS wasn’t hackable it would of been completely demolished by the PSP.

               Just my two cents try not to get too uptight about it…

               And realize this man will probably be broiled slowly over an open pit for all to see… so you won already didn’t ya? Good thing justice is being serviced so efficiently on this planet, I know I’ll sleep better…

2. 

   thorn

   June 2, 2011 at 9:17 am

   there is no law against selling moddified electronics unless it can kill someone he broke no law he owned the psp’s then he can sell them unless he was shipping them with memory sticks with games unless there homebrew i hope his case gets dismissed and his property returned

   many of us are with him on this

   Reply
   1. 

      Another Melbourne Gamer

      June 3, 2011 at 4:04 pm

      Um. What?

      Reply