Talk:Modchip/Archive 1

message: Sega Dreamcast does have a hardware copy protection system.  It's just that the system BIOS has a back door that allows it to boot games from regular CDs.  Xbox has a similar back door, but in order to use the back door, you must be able to "sign" the code as being allowed to use it - not going to happen any time soon.
-- Myria 05:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I am about to mod my PlayStation 2 (I live in Australia), and I wanted to know the dangers of modding. Can anyone elaborate on this? YazzaMatazza 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreamcast 

message: Someone added a bit on the DS and these supposed modchips that load DS roms from the GBA slot. I'm aware of this procedure, but it is done through Passme decives, not modchips. If I am mistaken and there is a DS modchip, maybe that part should be sourced. Otherwise, I'm removing the paragraph. --Thaddius 16:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading somewhere that it is possible to make a passme device by modifying a normal DS game cartridge. Thats tough to give a category, I think the Nintendo DS part should be put back into the article as its more relevant to the article than softmodding on an xbox. 211.28.237.112 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passme device is not a modhip. Read the passme page for some clarification. --Thaddius 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DS modchips 

message: There are some elements of this article (eg the last link in the links section) that look like advertising, should they be removed or are they genuinely useful? Jamamala 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: To my knowledge, the alleged "reporting for vandalism" hasn't actually happened, at least not in the appropriate place. I've been trying to ignore this spat, as I do for most unproductive discussion, but this is just to let other editors opposing the addition of unsourced commentary to the article (who are in the majority) know not to be intimidated. Chris Cunningham 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm sorry but it "has" happened. I'm really tired of debating it, I know the facts so like it or lump it. Do any of you actually live in Australia? Or are you just arrogant Americans thinking you know everything about anything? You think that you know everything one could know because of that Bachelor's degree, don't you? I provided many sources, accept it or live in a dream world, it's your decision but either way you're still quite simply; wrong. If you would like to continue to contribute false information to Wikipedia then by all means edit everything on the site to accord with your own personal view. End of discussion. MikeZombie777 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd have thought that if you were capable of parsing my user page for ammunition you'd at least have noticed that I'm not an "arrogant American", but you're right; this is the end of discussion, unless you're able to come up with a better argument for keeping those references (and the commentary they were related to). I have no opinion on whether or not copyright circumvention is legal in case X in Australia, I'm just trying to make sure policy is followed (which means that statements made in articles should be reliably and accurately sourced, and that Wikipedians shouldn't be advancing arguments which aren't directly made by sourced material). Chris Cunningham 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vandalism" 

message: I couldn't help but notice that in the Sega Saturn section, but no where else in the article, it refers to illegally copied games as "backups".  Something should probably be changed here.
:Maybe you should actually do a search (CTRL-F) in the article. The word "backup" appears in the intro, multiple times in the PlayStation summary, and in the Dreamcast summary. Also, the legality of such copies depends on the exact context of their creation and usage, pertinent to the laws in each country, so categorically referring to them as "illegal" is a(nother) baseless assumption. Ham Pastrami 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsitent terminology 

message: I have seen many oversimplifications and plain wrong information when it comes to legal status in some countries, and I'd very much like to improve that. I started with the section on Italy's court ruling, putting some things in perspective. Next up, I'll try to clear up the obviously sensitive matter of Australian legality, which is still misleading at best.
Is there a special reason why the EUCD -- the "European Copyright Directive", Europe's version of the DCMA which has been adopted by all EU states but Sweden and Spain -- is not even mentioned anywhere? FreddyYak! 14:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major issues in "Legality" 

message: I realize that Australian legality is a sensitive issue (see the heated discussion above), but the section was inaccurate at best. I moved the outdated court ruling down and put it into perspective with old and new legislation. I elaborated on the first paragraph which actually didn't make any statements regarding legality. And, above all, I corrected the sentence about the legality of modchips circumventing both copyright and region protection mechanisms, which was misleading as it declared this practice legal (which, unless a court rules otherwise, it isn't, see first paragraph). If any issues arise with my edit, I hope they can be resolved in a mature manner (unlike, again, see discussion above). --FreddyTalk 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another try to clear up Australian legality