(High Court of Australia) The court was asked whether modchips used to free games consoles were a ‘technological protection measure’ designed to circumvent were a device etc. ‘designed . . to prevent or inhibit’ infringement. The court rejected the argument that modchips opened the market to infringing product and so they circumvented ETMs which prevented or restricted infringement.
McHugh J said: ‘In my opinion, for the purpose of s 10(1), a device is a device that is ‘designed . . to . . inhibit’ copyright if the device functions, ‘in the ordinary course of its operation’, so as to make the doing of an act of copyright infringement – not impossible – but more difficult than it would be if the device did not operate.’
McHugh J
[2005] HCA 58, (2005) 221 ALR 448, (2005) 79 ALJR 1850
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Applied – Higgs v Regina CACD 24-Jun-2008
The defendant appealed against his conviction under the section. He ran a business fitting modifying chips to games consoles allowing them to play non-certificated games CDs.
Held: The appeal was allowed. It was not suggested that the use of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.270347