EU court upholds right to sell PlayStation add-ons, in loss for Sony

Software sold by UK company Datel that allowed infinite boosts on a racing game doesn’t infringe EU copyright law, judges in Luxembourg said, in a ruling that some say could prove crucial to the gaming sector.

[Inverno]

This reads extremely weird to me. But good that they went against SONY over a harmless mod.

[Eonjay]

It's harmless until it becomes a part of the multiplayer online landscape and you have to buy accessories in order to co.pete. I'm really torn here. I think anyone should be able to sell accessories but at the same time how does Sony protect its consumers from cheaters? I hate monopolies and I hate cheating.

How do we reconcile? Any thoughts?

[jznrpg]

Sony is not monopoly and that’s not the argument here, so I don’t get the point of that.

For single player games if they can make it detect outside influence it should disable trophies. Personally I think it’s lame to cheat on single player games (that devs haven’t installed themselves) as the challenge is a lot of the fun. If people want to do it I don’t really care, but trophies should be disabled. Online games, it is definitely a potential issue for mass cheating.

[Inverno]

Online hacks are already a thing and those are usually taken down without much issue. This is basically a mod for a game that can only be played offline, it ain't a problem.

[InUrFoxHole]

@Jznrpg
Unless I read his comment wrong. I don't think he's saying sony is a monopoly. He's just stating in the gaming field he like neither monopolies and or cheating

[DivineHand125]

The judge made the decision because it wasn't harming anyone. It was adding enhancements to single player games.

[MDTunkown]

That thing won’t work in an online game.
You know back in the days we had cheats in single player games. Then the forced at us cheating ain’t cool and rebranded cheats as paid dlc and called it early unlocking. And this generation Sony doesn’t even let 3rd parties to make their own ps5 controller (all ps5 controllers that are sold now have same board)

[IAMRealHooman]

its for Motorstorm? just let the people boost

[MDTunkown]

If it’s from motorstorm than it’s online services were closed very long time ago

[OtterX]

Time for Game Genie to make a comeback!

[sagapo]

or Action Replay!

[OtterX]

Yep, had Action Replay on PS1 also! Good times!

I'm cool w it as long as it's unusable in Multiplayer modes, and it disables trophies. I'm sure someone would find a way to skirt it though. Sounds like it would be a huge headache for Sony to implement w the modern gaming setup.

[90sGamingWasBetter]

The Game Genie was great, I'm also fine with people cheating on a single player game and would welcome anything that let me beat bosses on certain games that I've been completely shut out of.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Good

[TheColbertinator]

Sony loses. We win.

[Einhander1972]

How is this ruling going against the platform holder when several rulings involving cheating software like aim bots have been ruled in favor of the games license holder.

And this is just a terrible ruling for platform security, all users are less safe.

[PapaBop]

Never heard of Xim? That's somehow legal and literally is like an aimbot. Developers can and do ban users who get caught using it.

[Einhander1972]

Those hardware devices aren't acsessing the memory of the console and altering it.

This program is basically a virus, if they can access the game data from memory they can access things like passwords stored in memory.

[PapaBop]

Datel? Not heard that name in ages, takes me back to the action replay and chipping cartridges of my ps1 teen years.

[Extermin8or3_]

Pretty sure these court cases were filed over a decade ago now if says the courts ruled that at the time in 2009 it was legal. I suspect it wouldn't be legal to sell cheats for a console game with online multiplayer anymore.

[gold_drake]

thats a very odd headline
ha.

[cthulhucultist]

The Directive 2009/24/EC – Legal Protection of Computer Programs specifically protects the source code and object code of a computer program, as they are regarded as the intellectual creation of the program's author. The ECJ AS I understand it, reaffirmed that this protection applies to the program as written and not to modifications that occur during runtime or involve manipulation of variables in the working memory of a device.

In other words, they distinguished between modifying variables in the working memory—a temporary change that occurs while the game is being played—and altering the source code or object code of the game itself.

The judges are not in position to understand the nuances and implications of all their judgments, since their main objectives are a) to interpret the laws citing precedents where necessary b) to adjudicate ambiguities c) to clarify legal principles.

Naturally a degree of discretion is applied and the interests need to be balanced, however this is not always the case.

Perhaps we will see the results of this ruling in future legal battles relating to gaming.