Mod chip highlights region-coding debate
In your article on Lik Sang International (South China Morning Post, Technology, September 2), you said the modification chips could be used to do two things. However, as far as I can see, only one of these things is obviously illegal - playing pirated games. Surely the other mod, being able to play regionally restricted games, is a marketing device.
Provided the user has bought a legitimate copy of the game, what difference does it make what region they live in or where they bought their player? What happens if you buy a legitimate game cartridge when you are travelling in the United States or Europe? If you pay full price, shouldn't it work?
The region-specific coding makes no sense in a place like Hong Kong where games or other digital products such as DVDs seem to come from all over the place, or where people travel so much and pick up software in different countries.
For example, I bought a legitimate copy of a television mini-series in HMV last week. My Mac G3 PowerBook refused to play the movie because it was a Region 1 disc and Hong Kong is designated as Region 3. As consumers, I do not think we should be restricted in this way when we buy a legitimate copy of a movie. After all, we are supposed to be licensing the performance, not buying a product.
I would like to see the software vendors explain why they do it and why hardware manufacturers - such as Apple - continue to support it.
Brian Paterson
Shui Hau Village
ONUS OF VIRUS problem IS ON SERVICE PROVIDERS
The historic debate in the United States on how best to prevent injury and death of car occupants eventually determined that it was not possible to re-train the American public to constantly use safety devices. The debaters concluded that if more lives were to be saved or spared serious injury, an active deployment device was needed.
The point: it was easier to control the activities of a few carmakers than all of the driving public.
Here is where spam and virus issues are similar. It is impossible to 'educate' everyone to the level of computer discipline needed for reasonable virus and spam protection (my wife will not even use a cellphone, nor will she programme the VCR ).
Instead of trying to educate millions of computer users, would it not be better to legislate business requirements for e-mail providers?
I believe that if any company wants to be in the business of offering internet or e-mail services in Hong Kong, the law should require them to provide virus protection and firewalls as part of the basic service. Netvigator offers these options.
Perhaps they should even be required to block e-mails that do not have matching e-mail provider names and internet protocol (IP) address details.
If Hong Kong does this, I am convinced it will quickly catch on in other parts of the world.
Once other countries implement similar laws, these problems will quickly diminish.
If the debate is about how sophisticated computer users need to be versus the quality of service provided by e-mail vendors, then I believe that any person should be entitled to problem-free e-mail as long as they know how to switch on their computer.
There is no other consumer product retailer I am aware of which arrogantly suggests that system weaknesses are the fault of the user - as Microsoft contends.
In other words, the service provider should not be just a passive conduit for transmitting problems among its customers. It has a responsibility to provide a clean service to its clients.
Just consider it as an electronic highway with safety railings.
Ralph Bishop
