Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Shuts Down Lik Sang
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has taken legal action, shutting down popular import gaming site Lik Sang for distributing X-box mod chips. Lik Sang is a popular import gaming site based out of Hong Kong. The full article (MSNBC) can be found here." Several people have pointed to the same story on news.com.
Mod chips, legal issues aside, are one of the "value adds" of the console market. Cracking down on this will drive Microsofts target audience away. Perhaps they've shot themselves in the foot with this.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Aren't most XBox mod chips basically BIOS replacements? Probably containing significant portions of Microsoft's original XBox BIOS?...
So it'd be a simple case of copyright infringement.
Everything else Lik-Sang sold, including GBA 'backup devices', PSX mods, and perfectly legit consoles, games, and accessories, were probably perfectly legal in most countries. Maybe they made a genuine mistake by stocking the XBox mods - not knowing they may have contained Microsoft's code?
haiku
add architecture
without the borg's consent?
enlist the lawyers.
\haiku
This space for rent.
Easybuy.
For now, at least.
Note: I have no affiliation with LikSang, or EasyBuy - they're just pretty similar. LikSang had a larger variety of video-game oriented products, but EasyBuy has most of the more popular modchips as well.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
Wow, since I cant get my mod chips off Lik Sang, next time Microsoft asks me "Where do I want to go today?", Ill be sure to say "Hong Kong, so I can buy my mod chip"...
... Micro$oft has just announced the availability of the Monopoly game for the Xbox.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
However, take that hack and turn it into a business for yourself by manufacturing hardware and selling it IS what they will move against. In my opinion, they have every right to do that, and it has nothing to do with a monopoly on anything.
I'm curious why you think MS has a right to stop a legitimate business from trying to turn a profit.
Mod chips are, protests to the contrary, legal. The only ground MS might have to contest them on would be through the DMCA, as a chip could be used to run a pirated copy of a game. However, the DMCA also makes allowances for circumvention with "significant non-infringing uses", which a mod chip certainly has (seeing as how many people here want to run Linux on it). Of course, the law only supports consumers as far as they're willing to pay their lawyers.
MS didn't license the Xbox to anyone, as anyone who owns one will tell you. People bought it outright, they can do whatever they want to it. People can sell hardware, software, instructions, whatever they want to help people modify their box.
Some people have taken the opinion that MS is only attacking those things which might threaten their profitability (such as giving people the ability to write/distribute their own, unsigned games). Okay, then why don't they go after aftermarket controller manufacturers, since they obviously compete with MS controllers?
This whole thing really irks me, and I'm not sure what bothers me more -- them getting away with it, or people believeing that MS has some kind of right to protect their flawed business model. Okay, maybe MS isn't making much money on hardware (as we all seem to believe). And we then assume they make that money back in development fees. So? I don't recall signing a piece of paper, when I bought my Xbox, that said I'd support Microsoft's business plan. Their plan is their own business. Lik Sang's business plan is, similarly, their business, and no one else's. They saw a need, and filled it. Sure, it's possible that mod chips might cut into a small fraction of game sales. Again, that's not my problem.
If chipping cuts into a significant fraction of sales, and people stop making games, and the platform dies, then, well, that is my problem, and I'll be disappointed. O h, well, too bad, maybe next time. I'll still have gotten my $300 worth of fun out of the box. But, again, that's how the market works.
This is capitalism at its best.
I find it ironic that it's China that has the strongest support of capitalism, and the US that has the strongest implicit government support of illegal monopolies.
"I haven't seen Nintendo screaming and yelling cuz of flash carts..
In fact the whole reason why I bought my GBA was because I wanted to program it.."
I believe the product was called 'Flash Linker', and yes Nintendo was very aggressive about getting it shut down.
Sony's done similar stuff against mod chips.
Frankly, the only reason this is of interest to Slashdot is because it's bent out of shape until it looks like MS is being an aggressive bully.
Perhaps no crimes are committed in the production or installation of them.
Say I go buy a used '89 Chevy pickup from a used car dealership. Perfectly legal.
There's a company in town called Classic Roadsters. They've produced a modded body for the '89 line of Chevy pickups that is very similar looking to a Hummer. Perfectly legal (the body shape doesn't breach any size requirements stipulated by the DOT).
but consider that most users would utilize their modchip to play copied games or ROMs or Linux, etc.
Now, say I took that modded truck, dressed myself into some army get-up, and drove onto the local army base, pretending to belong to the armed services (I don't). Now I'm doing something illegial.
My point is this: the XBox is a piece of physical hardware. It can be patented. It cannot be licensed. Once I purchase an XBox (if I ever do), I will OWN it 100%. Nothing that Microsoft ever says or does can change that. If I want to take the bloody thing apart and turn it into a toaster oven, Microsoft can't do a thing about it.
People have outfitted their cars for over 60 years now making them better. Say I had a beat-up Ford pickup that didn't work anymore, so I put in an engine from a Dodge pickup so I could get the Ford working again (please don't tell me if this is possible or not... I don't know, but it's all for the sake of argument). I don't think Dodge or Ford would complain. I'm sure you know someone who put a new stereo system into their car. They didn't have to buy a whole new car to get that stereo system they wanted. They put one into their own car so they could have better sound. People soup up their cars all the time specifically so that they don't have to buy a new car just to get the same features. It's perfectly legal to do so. It should be perfectly legal to do the same with consoles.
Xbox is sold at a loss.Microsoft needs to sell games for the xbox in order to recoup the losses it incurs for every unit sold.
Tough shit. Do you see Lincoln selling their Towncar at $9,999 brand new missing an air conditioner, and then selling air conditioners for $20,000 more? And on top of it all, making the Towncar so that no other AC would work in it except for Lincoln's own AC? Of course not! But this is what Microsoft is doing! Don't blame the customer for finding a better deal which is less profitable to Microsoft.
I never, ever post here, mostly because Slashdot is so packed nowadays it's probably already been said. But I feel compelled.
All of you saying Microsoft has the right to do this:
Are you all complete and utter retards? Does this really have to be explained to you anew each time something actions such as this (Not necessarily by Microsoft) has been taken?
Let's try again, slowly for those of you who can't understand it.
1) Although there aren't enough details available (That I've seen) to judge this particular instance, virtually every time a purveyor of products that let you change what you've legally purchased to do something else gets shut down it is NOT with actual legal action, it is with the THREAT of legal action. The sickening fact of all this isn't whether or not these entities are within their legal right to do this, but that the question is never asked. Lawsuits are so onerous that the mere threat of one is sufficient to stop what MAY BE legal. The crucial legal court test NEVER OCCURS.
2) The 'slippery slope', while being largely a strawman argument, in cases like this is perhaps valid. If you don't think ANY hardware company is absolutely DROOLING at the prospect of extending it's reach far beyond the change of posession (purchase) of a product you're living in a fantasy world. Precendents such as this will of course start with a basis in what are apparently legal and moral positions, right now in the name of stopping piracy, but there is absolutely no reason to stop there. Once you've established the precedent of extending so-called 'rights' beyond the customer taking posession of your product you have infintely more control over what they can and cannot do, spanning legal and illegal uses.
3) The fact that devices such as mod chips (And P2P networks, for that matter) have both legitimate and illegitimate uses is not just a side argument. It is important to realize that many freedoms enjoyed by Americans (And for that matter, citizens of many other countries) are freedoms that could be used for both legitimate and illegitimate purposes. Drawing comparisons between the use of mod chips and free speech is more than just hyperbole, it is an attempt to illustrate that once you start allowing the restriction of something based on it's (in this case potentially) illegal uses you are setting a very dangerous precedent, and one that because of the DMCA has criminal and not just civil ramifications.
The DMCA is the bridge between a civil lawsuit brought by Microsoft and someone going to jail for making or using something that could be used to violate IP 'rights'. If you still don't believe me, ask yourself why they need the DMCA then? Why was it necessary for the government to enact legislation that allows companies and the government to take punitive actions against those who violate IP, or more accurately those who MAKE things that COULD be used to violate IP, rather than stick with civil proceedings? (Even the threat of which, I might add, seem to work just fine.) In other words, if you're going to say no one's going to get sent to jail for this, why is there a law that says you will? Do you honestly think that mod chip makers should go to jail?
4) Microsoft's choice to sell their products (X-box) at a loss does not automatically give them the legal right to take any and all action they see fit to try and make money through other means, in this case through game licenses. It's been said time and again but you still don't seem to get it, just because somebody WANTS to make money doesn't mean they GET to. It's very possible that their choice to try and pursue this method of profit is foolish and could result in failure due to the boxes being modded for uses besides purchasing the products they do make money on, but because of point (1) we may never know. By using the threat of legal action they may have secured a business model that is unavailable to other companies without as deep pockets. Do you think Microsoft would have succeeded in beating down Lik Sang if Microsoft were a small startup? (Not that X-box's major competitors, such as Sony, are small startups.) No. They can do this because of point (1), and because other companies realize the law being on their side (perhaps) is a moot point. In this case, Might Makes Right.
I hope this explains a bit to those of you comparing modding your X-Box to rolling your odometer back on your car (boggle) or simply accusing posters of being Microsoft/other large coporate entity bashers. It IS about essential rights, albeit indirectly, whether you choose to believe ir ot not.
-- If we were in any other industry they would've shot us a long time ago.
The chips typically allow a game machine to play legally and illegally copied discs, run unauthorized software and play game discs intended for other geographic regions.
Unauthorized by who?
People have established that Microsoft isn't attacking hackers directly. If you want to open up your xbox and piss on the circuits, BillyBorg can't stop you. If you manufacture and sell commercially a means to circumvent or alter their code, they can. The real question is, why?
Basically, MS could care less about someone making money doing this. What they really care about is what this enables. A commercial outfit, manufacturing and selling components *enables* virtually all people to purchase xboxes with the *intent* of using them for alternate purposes. If they leave hack-shops unchecked for long, they have basically allowed a competing market to develop against what they really want to sell - games and service.
If I want to purchase an xbox because I want to mod it AND I know I can just buy a chip online with ease, Microsoft would rather not sell me the xbox in the first place. Since they can't discriminate against buyers, they can make it more difficult for me to purchase a chip. Microsoft is not targetting the hardcore hackers. If you want to hack an xbox that badly and you have the skills, you'll do it. Who they *are* targetting is the average Joe Sixpack who buys an xbox. If he buys it and later sees he can easily purchase and install a mod to do things like play pirated games or run a webserver, Microsoft has just lost marketshare in the market that counts.
THAT's what they are trying to stop. Not hacking, but the widespread usage of manufactured mods by average users.
The problem is that the mod chip contains leaked code from the dev version of the x-box, which you didn't buy. They're basically selling pirated software. That's why MS is angry- what's on the chip, not the fact that there's a chip.
Username taken, please choose another one.
MS may have been forced to drop their price to keep up with their competition, but that's the way economics works, as you so bluntly point out.
If you build a product that is more expensive than a similar one from a competitor, expect people to buy the cheaper one. If you can't make yours cheaper, don't expect regulation to help you make up the cost difference. There is no inherent right to make profit in a capitalist system-- if you can't get your production costs down as low as your competitors, you will be priced right out of the market. This happens all the time.
Why should microsoft be able to sell things at a loss with profits ensured by law, while their competitors are capable of making a profit on the hardware even at lower price points? (Nintendo is making a profit on the gamecube at $150)
But I digress. All of this is nearly irrelevant in the first place-- mod chips are no more illegal than guns. Just because they can be used illegally does not make them intrinsically illegal. (Unless they contain copyrighted code by MS!!) Whether or not MS has to lower their prices below cost to keep up with their competition's superior designs has no bearing on whether or not modchips are legal.
"If they illegally copied, modified, and resold their copyright materials, yes."
You are correct, sir.
I do not know if the modchips contain copyrighted MS code. I suspect some do and some don't depending on the method used.
If they do not, however, NO ONE is reselling copyrighted materials.
Your example is slightly incorrect, too. There is no difference between what a reseller of mod-chipped xboxes is doing, and a reseller of modified cars, except that only an idiot would sell the reseller a car at a loss. How can you claim that "Company A" is keeping "all the profits?" when "Company B" has no profit to start with? If "Company B" has a poorly designed product that they can't manufacture at a low enough cost to keep up with their competition AND make a profit, why should the courts enforce their profits? Is it illegal to buy an xbox and then just leave it sitting around? Hardly. Yet that leaves MS in exactly the same money-losing situation as putting a mod chip in and using it for legal purposes.
Pirating games is illegal. Building a modchip containing modified MS XBox BIOS code is illegal. Building a modchip that contains no MS code and using it to play a European game or make backups of your games is legal.