- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Torino
- Website
- fotoalbum.virgilio.it
- XP
- 122
- Country
x if buyers and friends "game copier" x R4 put quick runs that risk?
much confusion in Italy, while France and Spain:
r4 French
http://www.tomshw.it/cont/news/nintendo-ds...ti/23116/1.html
see:
R4 mod chip ruling postponed
The Association of Italian videogame software publishers, on 12 May, had issued a press release titled very bombastic "The Supreme Court confirmed that the console is change offense."
The panic, as expected, and is 'spread among retailers and companies specializing in the field: after a few days here to get the dry denied holding more' important sector at a national level we are talking about Recoverybios that, with another press release he wanted to clarify some details omitted dall'AESVI.
In practice Recoverybios notes that this new ruling is nothing but a reference to another part of the Last Judgement: the vexed issue of modding is approached by several years around the world and, so far only in Italy, the modding is still considered an offense although the Law is not 'very clear.
Here Recoverybios press release:
We read with astonishment, if not dismay, a press release of the Software Publishers Association Italian videogame (AESVI), the bombastic title "The Supreme Court confirmed that the console is change offense."
Although it is not our custom to take place through mass media and news about ongoing proceedings pending at the preliminary inquiry, the unique initiative of AESVI in a divination with the skills underlying the press - which on one hand admits that has not yet deposited on the ground, unless stated as of now, no one knows on what basis, that the Supreme Court has "confirmed" the illegality of changes on the console (sic) - forces us to some details, with the sole purpose of groped to restore the truth.
The decision was annulled by the Supreme Court, first, is an order of the Court of Review of Florence, who in turn canceled a seizure order issued by Attorney Florence, allowing the application of the Advocate Sandro War interests of society Recoverybios.com Ltd.
Judges review the decision - issued January 12, 2010 - it was stated very clearly, the irrelevance of the criminal changes to console the latter were not intended to encourage copyright infringement, but to enable the consumer to benefit from software developed by third parties and, anyway, to enrich the range of device capabilities, better known as the console.
In accordance with the heads already adopted in Australia, France, Spain and the United Kingdom, the Court ruled that Florentine possible to speak of technological protection measures protected by copyright law where these are not implemented on protected works, but the hardware, ie the console.
The ordinance, however, was entirely in line with guidance previously given by the Court of Florence in another order of February 19, 2008, which is read as "[...] you can not according to our orders and in accordance also basic principles of Community law to prevent the owner who buys a computer or any other "machinery" to make lawful use and also creative monopolistically and tied to certain programs and procedures imposed by produttric home [and] in order to evade the mechanisms of competition. In other words, is fully convincing and it seems that democratic constitutional reading in this vein is carried out those standards, such as protection of copyright and technological support to protect this right and not mediated by way of measures that are only to encourage monopolistic positions and acquire annuities market position. "
And was in line, moreover, has already been set by Judge for Preliminary Investigations of the Florence Court in another decision of 28 December 2009, adopted to reject a request made by the preventive seizure Florentine prosecutor at the request of a renowned manufacturer of consoles: 'the system of recognition and support of console video game, "reads the order," has only the function of preventing interoperability with equipment and media not welcome at the console manufacturer. The device technology is in fact a code and apply to the game, but to be recognized by the console, and not directly aimed at preventing illegal copying of the game but the recognition by the duplicate video game console, and thus the possibility read the same. "
The order of January 12, 2010, in fact, was overturned by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, but with reference to the Court of Florence and without referral, sign this, that the "title" of the press release is AESVI all wrong, not only because the review did not assess the existence of an offense (but only its abstract configurability, which is already excluded by the Court of Florence), but also and above all, because only by reading the Grounds is able to understand in what the court has considered the legality of the story worthy of reconsideration.
And indeed we have no reason to believe that the Court of Florence will deviate, in the trial court, and consolidated by its previous guidance.
We hope for the future, an association that is so important to pay more attention and refrain from actions that, in addition to being disrespectful to the work of judges who have not yet justified their decision, do nothing but help create confusion in an area where, as anyone can see, there's already too much.
We note, finally, albeit incidentally, that the Antitrust Authority and the Market has started a procedure to verify the legality of the implementation of "technological measures" consisting of "armor" of the hardware market and its "twinning" with the licensed software by the producers at the expense of the rights of third-party developers and independent and, therefore, ultimately, consumers.
Adapted from http://giochi.atuttonet.it/news/modific ... legali.php
then ?????
much confusion in Italy, while France and Spain:
r4 French
http://www.tomshw.it/cont/news/nintendo-ds...ti/23116/1.html
see:
R4 mod chip ruling postponed
The Association of Italian videogame software publishers, on 12 May, had issued a press release titled very bombastic "The Supreme Court confirmed that the console is change offense."
The panic, as expected, and is 'spread among retailers and companies specializing in the field: after a few days here to get the dry denied holding more' important sector at a national level we are talking about Recoverybios that, with another press release he wanted to clarify some details omitted dall'AESVI.
In practice Recoverybios notes that this new ruling is nothing but a reference to another part of the Last Judgement: the vexed issue of modding is approached by several years around the world and, so far only in Italy, the modding is still considered an offense although the Law is not 'very clear.
Here Recoverybios press release:
We read with astonishment, if not dismay, a press release of the Software Publishers Association Italian videogame (AESVI), the bombastic title "The Supreme Court confirmed that the console is change offense."
Although it is not our custom to take place through mass media and news about ongoing proceedings pending at the preliminary inquiry, the unique initiative of AESVI in a divination with the skills underlying the press - which on one hand admits that has not yet deposited on the ground, unless stated as of now, no one knows on what basis, that the Supreme Court has "confirmed" the illegality of changes on the console (sic) - forces us to some details, with the sole purpose of groped to restore the truth.
The decision was annulled by the Supreme Court, first, is an order of the Court of Review of Florence, who in turn canceled a seizure order issued by Attorney Florence, allowing the application of the Advocate Sandro War interests of society Recoverybios.com Ltd.
Judges review the decision - issued January 12, 2010 - it was stated very clearly, the irrelevance of the criminal changes to console the latter were not intended to encourage copyright infringement, but to enable the consumer to benefit from software developed by third parties and, anyway, to enrich the range of device capabilities, better known as the console.
In accordance with the heads already adopted in Australia, France, Spain and the United Kingdom, the Court ruled that Florentine possible to speak of technological protection measures protected by copyright law where these are not implemented on protected works, but the hardware, ie the console.
The ordinance, however, was entirely in line with guidance previously given by the Court of Florence in another order of February 19, 2008, which is read as "[...] you can not according to our orders and in accordance also basic principles of Community law to prevent the owner who buys a computer or any other "machinery" to make lawful use and also creative monopolistically and tied to certain programs and procedures imposed by produttric home [and] in order to evade the mechanisms of competition. In other words, is fully convincing and it seems that democratic constitutional reading in this vein is carried out those standards, such as protection of copyright and technological support to protect this right and not mediated by way of measures that are only to encourage monopolistic positions and acquire annuities market position. "
And was in line, moreover, has already been set by Judge for Preliminary Investigations of the Florence Court in another decision of 28 December 2009, adopted to reject a request made by the preventive seizure Florentine prosecutor at the request of a renowned manufacturer of consoles: 'the system of recognition and support of console video game, "reads the order," has only the function of preventing interoperability with equipment and media not welcome at the console manufacturer. The device technology is in fact a code and apply to the game, but to be recognized by the console, and not directly aimed at preventing illegal copying of the game but the recognition by the duplicate video game console, and thus the possibility read the same. "
The order of January 12, 2010, in fact, was overturned by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, but with reference to the Court of Florence and without referral, sign this, that the "title" of the press release is AESVI all wrong, not only because the review did not assess the existence of an offense (but only its abstract configurability, which is already excluded by the Court of Florence), but also and above all, because only by reading the Grounds is able to understand in what the court has considered the legality of the story worthy of reconsideration.
And indeed we have no reason to believe that the Court of Florence will deviate, in the trial court, and consolidated by its previous guidance.
We hope for the future, an association that is so important to pay more attention and refrain from actions that, in addition to being disrespectful to the work of judges who have not yet justified their decision, do nothing but help create confusion in an area where, as anyone can see, there's already too much.
We note, finally, albeit incidentally, that the Antitrust Authority and the Market has started a procedure to verify the legality of the implementation of "technological measures" consisting of "armor" of the hardware market and its "twinning" with the licensed software by the producers at the expense of the rights of third-party developers and independent and, therefore, ultimately, consumers.
Adapted from http://giochi.atuttonet.it/news/modific ... legali.php
then ?????
