Talk:Modchip

Panasonic_Q

"A modified version that allows users to play commercial DVDs from all regions was listed at US$499." Isn't this contradictory to their stance on CPRM? They go after modchip makers for bypassing CPRM, yet profited from it. Couldn't something like this be raided in a RAID?

Panasonic/Nintendo would be, naturally, within their rights to produce and sell such an item. The Panasonic Q article you are referring to suggests that this was an officially produced item, which is debatable -- and strikingly unsourced in the article. --Takimata (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup proposal

I would like to propose a general cleanup of this page. While I acknowledge the effort some have put into describing the various modchips for the systems, I find the level of detail, especially in the "History" section, counterproductive. Describing technical details of modchips (i.e. the "Qoob" for GameCube) is like describing technical details of car models in the article about cars. I'd rather see the article reformatted and slendered down to make a general statement. And I'd like to know what the consensus would be for such a reformatting. --Freddy^Talk 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged with "examplefarm" today. I hope to draw some attention to this article really needing cleanup to be encyclopedic, because in my opinion it is conflicting with WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#GUIDE. I realize that there are some users contributing what they think is encyclopedic knowledge, but listing specific modchips and how many wires they need most certainly isn't. This article has to get more general. Here's hoping for a discussion on that topic. --Freddy^Talk 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I should really work on this soon. Chris Cunningham 11:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As recommended by WP:SUBPAGES, I have started the Temp page for this major revision draft. Freddy^Talk 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Major adjustments to the revision draft. Could I have everyones' opinion on that almost complete rewrite? Also, I've been working late, so my wording may not be the very best. Please correct it as you see fit. Freddy^Talk 00:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archive

Moved outdated discussions and those who target already changed content to a newly created Archive page. --Freddy^Talk 15:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article could really use better formating. The currently it is not divided into sections, and long sections of straight prose are not good for reading. 65.41.54.53

This article could also benefit from mentions of alternatives to chipping, such as boot disks, Gamesharks, cartridge converters, and the like. It also does not mention the Saturn, which has fairly unique protection methods (regional lockout is separate from copy protection; regional lockout can be easily overcome via a cartridge such as ST Key or Action Replay, though to bypass copy protection requires a chip. Only one Saturn chip ever was able to bypass regional lockout.) A brief mention of consoles which do not feature protection would also be a good idea-many cartridge-based systems, the 3DO, and presumably others fall into this category.)

I didn't ever read this first and I added some stuff on the 3DO, Saturn, PSX, alternate uses (swap, boot, and gameshark), but I'm beginning to think that my saturn additions are innacurate, and that I din't mention enough. I did seperate some of the systems. I don't know why Xbox360 was in with the sixth generation consoles. I think the PSP should be moved as well but I'm too lazy to check. Also all the 'generation' things should be linked to the history of video games. I'll work on some of these things when I can, but help would be appreciated. Aside from that, it's pretty informative as is. --Thaddius 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I linked and divided all of the generations as I understand them, but I'm willing to admit that I may not know everything there is to know, or I might be misinformed. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge could fix up the pre-fifth, fifth, and seventh-generation sections. --Thaddius 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

New Generation? New modchip?

There is new modchip/programmer called infectus. Ut's full reprogrammable and can be every thing. Can be it added like a new generation? I have big doubts about the correct position where to put it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.72.115.156 (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The ESA is using this page as propaganda?

According to this Gamespot article [1]ESA IPs have been editing this article. They have edited it to say that mod chips are flatly illegal because of the DMCA. I don't believe this is fact, and I believe this is nothing more than their legal opinion on an issue that is still under question. There is no source proving it. If someone does not provide a source showing the DMCA makes mod chips completely illegal, with no grey area, as this article states, I will remove that statement. Edward4321 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Illegal where? ESA has no authority in my country and I'm sure they don't have any authority in most countries either. The DMCA is the kind of law the world will never accept. Corporations might rule (for now) in the USA, but never in the rest of the world. Digg has reported this incident as well. If ESA thinks raiding people's homes will scare others, they have a lot to learn from the RIAA and MPAA. If something, their stupid actions will only cause mass rebellion against their system; until everyone is declared criminal and the people awake to decide THEY are the criminals. Laws are made by people, supposedly elected by others to defend their best interest. If politicians only work to betray their own people, then the time will come when the people will get fed up and take the matters on their own hands... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.208.131.6 (talk) 23:55:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am sorry. I should have noted that the ESA edited the USA part, so it doesn't effect the rest of the world. And the DMCA is an American law only, not international. But someone has gone and changed it. But I don't know if I like the new version any better. It says...

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not mention modchips in particular, but some may interpret the meaning of the law as stating that modchips are illegal because many are made specifically to circumvent the copy-protection features of their host systems. During the rise of Modchips for the original PlayStation, and prior to the DMCA, various import game dealers introduced a so-called anti-piracy or good Modchip, which was further developed to allow playback of import games, but not burned game discs.

There is no source to these "good modchips" or to the people who claim that mod chips are illegal. I know both statements are probably true, as many people believe modchips are illegal. For example, the ESA believes they are illegal. But these statements need to be sourced. Provide a source to an organization that believes mod chips are illegal. This is a controversial topic so we need to be careful here. Edward4321 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They sure did. The relevant IP is 63.138.80.34 Joylock 05:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, if it is a computer (determined by definition of a computer) the video game console is thusly by right of the user allowed to do anything to the internal structure or programming of its systems as long as this does not intentionally or unintentionally damages any persons or intellectual properties. As such you are also allowed to sell anything you have legally bought to a person as long as you are full right telling them you are not representing the company or manufacturer of the device what-so-ever. About the DMCA, the DMCA is a copyright act for A. Digital Media that has self-proclaimed copyrights and B. Digital Media that is being shared (as in broadcast or hosted) on a non copyright owner's network. Meaning that the game being on the computer is illegal if they do not own it yet a burnt disc is illegal but not by DMCA, that is by duplication acts. Anyways mod consoles are not illegal in USA and for the government to sue for them would be unconstitutional. I removing the part though as it is just wrong in so many ways... 75.58.2.247 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're as wrong as you could possibly be. Freddy^Talk 08:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble but, that had very little to do with modchips, that was mainly because the guys had piracy linked on his site, plus I looked more into it and it was believed he was selling burnt copies as well. The whole thing about him selling mod chips had very little influence on him being arrested. And I full-heartedly believe that it would have been thrown out if not for the other implications that he had brought upon himself. But both positions are of speculation on our parts as to how much mod chips actually had to do with his being arrested. 75.58.2.247 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about the arrest, but about one of several convictions. Under the DMCA. For selling modchips. Which are circumventing DRM mechanisms. Which is illegal under the DMCA. Here's another example. What exactly are you trying to convince yourself of here? Freddy^Talk 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term Piracy

I would like to object the verbose and abusive use of the term "piracy" in this article, for the reasons stated by the Free Software Foundation:

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “prohibited copying” or “unauthorized copying” are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

On top of that Piracy is not a legally accepted term (in the USA) to describe Copyright infringement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.208.131.6 (talk) 00:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the Free Software Foundation, "piracy" is almost universally accepted as being as valid synonym of "copyright infringement", history of the language be damned. I do wish the FSF would spend time on something they're better at than telling people how to use the English language. Chris Cunningham 00:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Major clean-up revision

I have now replaced the article with an almost complete re-write. Above all, it cuts the excessive use of examples in the "history" section that has gone to the point where it describes installation routines. Also, the "legality" section, which has traditionally been a point of contention, has been generalised.

That being said, the information previously collected under the "history" section is not entirely useless. It just shouldn't clutter up the modchip article. It can very well be used in individual articles or sections with the respective video game systems (which in turn can be referenced under "see also" in the Modchip article). This revision contains the last pre-revision version of the article and can serve as copy/paste source.

Of course, I do not claim that the article is perfect in its present form. It can and should be improved. But I strongly feel that this revision was very necessary to turn the article towards encyclopedic value. Freddy^Talk 17:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

JFTR: The draft page has been deleted. Freddy^Talk 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are taking a major step backward in this article with your revision. You did an admirable job of rewritting and compressing some useful information, thus cleaning up part of the article. But in so doing, you gutted most of the information. If you are going to rewrite this article, it would probably be best if you didn't remove most relevant, interesting information. Me, personally, find this revision quite useless, and had to go back into the history of this article to find information I was looking for. If I were you, I would undo this revision, as it is currently useless in its current, overgeneralized state. Dantheman102100 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been expecting some users to complain about "information loss". And, as I said before, I do not dispute that I have cut interesting and valuable information. Point is: That information should not be included in the Modchip article - very much like interesting, valuable information about specific car models should not be included with the article on Automobiles.

However, I will happily stand corrected. May I ask which "most relevant, interesting information" you are missing from the article in its current state? (Remember WP:NOT#DIRECTORY) Freddy^Talk 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The information I was refering to was the external modchip info as well as modchips on specific consoles, like the PS2, XBOX, etc. modchip information. Dantheman102100 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was talking about above. If you were to look up different XBox modchips in the Modchip article, something would have gone seriously wrong. You wouldn't consult the Automobile article to look up a BMW's tire size, now would you?

As I said before: I don't deny some parts of the History section has been valuable information (although quite a lot was purposeless trivia clutter). But it hasn't been historical information, and it is information that should not be included with a general article on modchips but rather either with the respective systems' (sub-)articles or with web pages specializing on that topic. Again and again: Wikipedia is not a directory. Freddy^Talk 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Non Sequitor. Your comparison of this article to BMW articles isn't the same. Modchips is the entire focal point of this article, regardless of which console, and removing any information relating to that focal point is illogical. A better comparison would be like removing the general information about the function of automobiles from the Automobile article.

Secondly, the console specific information on modchips is an extention of the general topic, giving general information about general modchip practices/methods for each console. As far as I can see, this doesn't fall under the definition of being a directory. It is simply a logical and Wikipedia-supported extention of an article.

Thirdly, if you are wanting to perform such a major revision, remove vast amounts of information then try to justify it by saying that sub-articles should be formed, dont you think it is kind of improper of you to simply dump that responsibility on others? It would be alot easier to simply revert to the previous version of the article, which was not necessarily needing a clean up, and still provides all information people are likely to be looking for. Alot more logical, no? Would remove your overgeneralized version of the article, but would be alot more logical and would be more useful and informative for anybody wanting to learn about modchips. Dantheman102100 05:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying hard not to take offense in your allegations. Neither did I "dump responsibilites", nor did I rob the article of its focal point. As I said, the article can and should be improved from this "clean slate", I can and will not object to a sensible reinclusion of historically relevant information. But I refuse to resurrect the utterly non-encyclopedic install guides/modchip directory/trivia section that called itself "history".

Seriously, you are defending a section that in all its glory described Xbox solder points, Playstation error messages, which GameCube modchip was copied from which, and what chipsets a certain PSP modchip was working on. There's really no reason to discuss this, this is stuff that is best left to "insider" web sites and installation manuals. Freddy^Talk 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to teach subject matter. The rewrite is vastly improved precisely because it omits the enumeration of various bits of hardware which the article used to revolve around. It was obvious that it was never going to improve unless someone took the initiative to start it over. Chris Cunningham 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offence freddy, I am simply expressing my concern about an article. This is a discussion page about an encyclopedia article, I'm simply discussing it. No need to take it personally.

And I'm not supporting the adding of information about xbox soldier points or whatever, I'm supporting the reinclusion of information about console specific modchips which you removed. Nothing more, nothing less. I was simply saying that it would have been alot easier/more logical to remove information like xbox points and information on how to install modchips etc. as opposed to remove most information that could be interesting or useful in a full rewrite of the article.

And, not trying to be rude Chris, if a encyclopedia is not intended to teach people, what is it supposed to do?

But, whatever. I have better things to do as opposed to argue with you whether it is good or bad to have relevant information in this article. Wish y'all the best of luck. Dantheman102100 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes absolute sense to include information about specific modchips where they mark significant milestones in modchip evolution. But as every console system requires an original approach and has seen multiple extraordinary modchip techniques, that criterion either qualifies every modchip or none for being mentioned. I am positive you will agree that listing every available modchip is not a viable option.

Anywho, I am happy you don't mean to offend anyone. Leaving the argument with "I've got better things to do than to explain to you that I'm right" certainly is the way to achieve that. Good luck to you, too. Freddy^Talk 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Undid the "memory card" edit

Both the "vast memory card" and the "memory32" are not modchips but rather very special memory cards, comparable to passthrough devices. But, above anything, the last major revision of this article got rid of the excess example farm, mentioning single product names should not be necessary to explain the concept of a modchip. --Freddy^Talk 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian legality, ad nauseum

One of the main goals I wanted to achieve with the major revision was to rewrite the Legality section so it does not make specific statements about legality in various countries. I rather chose to include the different laws that apply. Especially since Australian law has been a controversial subject in the past.

To the contributor from 122.106.32.229: No, Australia does not allow modchips as you said, it does, however, not outlaw them per se either. The Australian Copyright Law (as referenced) does clearly outlaw the circumvention of copy protection measures, and it also clearly allows region code circumvention (as noted). Whether or not this makes a modchip illegal is up to the courts to decide (And, no, the 2005 High Court decision has been superseded by recent law changes and does not apply anymore). The article only states the two laws that have to be applied without making a final statement.

Finally, deleting the reference does not make the Australian Copyright Law and its implications on modchip legality go away, so please refrain from deleting it. Freddy^Talk 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australia's_High_Court_rules_mod-chips_are_legal

I also have spoken to a few lawyers here in Aus, and currently run my own modding shop, if it were not legal and up to the courts i would be in and out of courtrooms 24/7, I am an advertised business. The law here simply states modchips are legal, we can take this further if you would like, a simple Google search would also prove I am correct and I do wish that this is corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.32.229 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article in its present form does not state that modchips are illegal in Australia. It states that one function is illegal in Australia, which is a big difference. The illegality of circumventing a TPM or an ACTPM, which in essence is the circumvention of copy protection, is quite clearly stated in the Australian Copyright Act (as amended in 2006), mainly in sections 116AN and 153DAA. This is law, and there is no way to argue this away. You will, however, notice that I have included the "other side", namely the region code circumvention exceptions, too, and that I deliberately refrained from making any statement about modchip legality in any country.

The semi-famous 2005 High Curt ruling you mention is based on the outdated 2005 Australian Copyright Law and has been targeted at Playstation modchips only (see the court decision's full text, section 179). With the Copyright Amendment Act of 2006, the terms the court ruling was nitpickingly based on have been profoundly changed and extended. I very much wish that people would finally put this court decision that hasn't had any significance to todays modchips under today's law to rest, but I'm afraid it will be still dragged out to make a point for the next two decades.

In any case: Recommended reading concerning the status quo of modchip legality under Australia's current law: http://nic.suzor.com/20061215-NS-modchips Freddy^Talk 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Took out DMCA Stuff

The DMCA line was just incorrect and was purely illusive of the fact that the DMCA does not have anything to do with Physical Media, if anything this would have to do with duplication laws and not the DMCA. IF someone can find a rightful source of how this would be tied into the DMCA and thusly be illegal in the United States then please post it otherwise please stop posting it up there. 75.58.2.247 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the DMCA you would know that it does apply in the context it was used in. See Anti-circumvention for a distilled discussion. And note that CDs and DVDs are digital (i.e. not analog) media. You seem to be confused as to what the DMCA actually says, which is why you should read it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As it can be used for playing "homebrew" or import media, it seems that it would fall under exception 4 on the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention... Plus the people modchips are specifically noted as to not be used for illegal activity which means the people "should" have the game, and under "Reverse Engineering and Circumvention" of the same page it states the following: "Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve the ability the interoperability of computer programs (i.e., the ability to exchange and make use of information)..." Basically it can be used for illegal activities but it is technically legal until someone uses it for illegal purposes. And even then if the manufacturer of the chip or the installer of the chip has the buyer accept a non-responsibility notice then they are doing nothing wrong. My suggestion is can we edit it to where it says "the device can be used for illegal activities as noted by the DMCA" or think of some other way than to say it is illegal, flat out, since this is very biased to what people might do with such a chip. Sorry about the DMCA stuff, they have changed it since last time I had to read it. 75.58.2.247 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Already covered. The article states:

the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms - is outlawed by many countries' copyright laws such as the DMCA in the USA, the EUCD and its various implementations by the EU member countries, and the Australian Copyright Act. Other laws may apply to modchips, sometimes allowing very specific functions such as region coding circumvention.

Also, I'm not sure why you're quoting section 103, as it only has to do with reverse engineering the protection mechanism, not the use of modchips. The exchange of information refers to using protocols to talk to the system, it does not allow you to run unauthorized game code ("to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement"). You're basically just injecting what you want the words to mean into your understanding of the law. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. And no, a disclaimer does not make it any less illegal to sell illegal modchips. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do also note that I made a very deliberate choice of words: The circumvention of copy protection mechanisms is illegal under the DMCA. This does not say anything about the legality of the activities made possible by disabling the copy protection mechanism, be it homebrew software or game piracy. Freddy^Talk 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While attempting not to bump this discussion, I'd like to add that this article is intended to be worldwide. As modchips are not region specific and sometimes are used to assure that video games be the same. 98.227.192.222 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is not referring to any particular country, just mentioning several countries' legislation. If that's what you are getting at. If not, I don't get what you are trying to say. Freddy^Talk 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

It seems to me the neutrality of this article is being brought into question, on several occasions. I'd like to add to that. The general gist of this article seems to be very anti-mod chip with phrases such as "...which invalidates a major reason to use a modchip." (Mythiran (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I agree that this very sentence might have an unwanted negative connotation, maybe the current revision is more neutral. Obviously, the "anti modchip measures" section caters for anti-modchip measures, and the rest of the article is strictly technical, so I assume you question the neutrality of the "legality" section? Please elaborate. Freddy^Talk 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I found no pro-modchip inside this article? --213.168.120.155 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Plastering the section with citation requests is very unneccessary when the laws themselves are referenced by their own Wikipedia article (unless, of course, you expect the specific paragraphs of the law texts). --Takimata (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality conclusions

To the anonymous editor from 98.227.192.222: The effort is certainly appreciated, but the legality of modchips is impossible to state due to the many diversified possible functions and methods of modchips, even in countries where applicable laws are quite concrete the legality would have to be evaluated in court. Also, if you take a look at the discussion pages, you will see that legal conclusions are a touchy subject and have traditionally lead to heated discussions and edit wars. It is best to stay away from making definitive conclusions and leave the legality section inconclusive. Freddy^Talk 12:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you are telling the anonymous guests to "fuck off" and end the article in hiatus/development? Some YouTuber is gonna say "Yeah their legal inm mty Shanghai u cAN 2", then when someother person in the UK does it and gets charged by Sony for copyright infringement (snitches in the mail, happens rarely, but that doesn't mean never). Think about what you're doing and have a nice day. 98.227.192.222 (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your wish for a definitive answer regarding modchip legality, but unfortunately there isn't one. As long as no reliable source (in this case meaning law text, or a court decision) literally states legality of modchips in general, we must not conclude one. Please do note and understand the Wikipedia rule that forbids original research. Freddy^Talk 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modchip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081104033228/http://www.xbox.com/en-US/LIVE/legal/legal-tou.htm to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/legal/legal-tou.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)