Slashdot Mirror
More on Microsoft vs. Lik Sang
Levendis47 writes "CNET's News.com is running an article on Microsoft's legal manuevers which have successfully shut down the Lik Sang ecomm store where they've been selling various game system mod chips including the OpenXBox Mod Chip. This leads me to two questions (and I'll admit my ignorance, faux or not, in order to get discussion on this topic): 1) When a customer purchases an XBox (or any game system for that matter) are you intrinsically "signing" an end-user agreement in the purchase that makes modding the device illegal? 2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?) 3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such? It would seem to me that in the long haul, Microsoft would support such efforts because they could sell more devices (and potentially more software if they licensed an opensource validation library)... "
i hate when someone gets rid of something that is really, really neat because they are a monopoly and they want to ruin everyone and make lots of money
it just happens all the time
Da comp cant tell u da emotional story.It can give u da exact mathematical design,but whatz missin is da eyebrows. -FZ
They dont directly mod the Xbox.
They say you need a modded Xbox machine to use it and they are using this clause against possible DMCA issue :
Everything done on this project is for the sole purpose of writing interoperable software under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA.
So they are perfectly legal imho...
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
"It would seem to me that in the long haul, Microsoft would support such efforts because they could sell more devices (and potentially more software if they licensed an opensource validation library)... "
Well, if they weren't selling the devices at a loss I'm sure that just "selling more devices" would be acceptable. They have ot make their money back somewhere (software & accessories).
-- derby
"It would seem to me that in the long haul, Microsoft would support such efforts because they could sell more devices (and potentially more software if they licensed an opensource validation library)... "
But MS does not make a real profit on the devices, only on the software. The XBoxes are dead cheap to make sure people by them, instead of other gaming consoles. So if you have a mod chip that allows the xbox to run other software, even if it's not illegal, then you're still a pain in the ass for microsoft because people use and (possibly) buy less of their software.
The Mod chips Lik Sang were selling probably contained partial copies of the BIOS code from the X-box. Since the BIOS code is usually copyrighted this is a copyright violation. While I don't necessarily agree with what MS is doing Lik Sang should have been a little more cautious. They gave MS an easy legal device to threaten them with, copyright violations, when it would've been more difficult to assault them with DMCA in Hong Kong.
STOP ROCK VIDEO
1) When a customer purchases an XBox (or any game system for that matter) are you intrinsically "signing" an end-user agreement in the purchase that makes modding the device illegal?
I haven't seen the packaging, but EULAs aren't that common on hardware purchased. In fact, the traditional business model is that you own the hardware you have purchased, although you do not own the rights to the design. I think MS would object if you were modding boxes and reselling them, however. (We can debate whether they have a legitimate gripe all day....)
2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?)
I doubt it. First, this isn't about profit, it's about ownership of the design. Microsoft's beef with Lik is that they are infringing on MS proprietary assets. (There's a lot more going on, of course, being that they're MS.) Even a non-profit group is not allowed to ignore intellectual property laws, so there's no protection inherent in being non-profit.
Second, remember that "non-profit" doesn't necessarily mean "makes no money." Many non-profit companies thrive & make a ton of bucks (Underwriters Labs, for ex), but they do not distribute dividends to shareholders. "Profit" is reinvested in the company. (Business gurus, correct any inaccuracies here.) As such, NP companies aren't that much different. They're still making money and paying salaries.
3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such?
I'm not prepared to address this one right now. (I'm at work, and I could easily spend a day trying to analyze that situation.)
Short version is that MS wants to prevent distribution of a chip they believe infringes on their intellectual property. They aren't really upset with the people making the mods...yet....
Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
I work for Ford in a Taurus/Sable plant's IT department. The computer and software that controls air/fuel mixture/shifting/braking/air-bag/climate-control/e tc. is indeed copy protected. The software varies from region to region (california is different from the rest of the US, Canada is different, etc). Yet there are "speed chips" available. Ford isn't going after these "speed chip" manufacturers under the DMCA.
Yeah, it does sound like a Village People song-I agree with you there.
EULAs apply to usage of the software, while GPL/BSD/etc place no restrictions on use of the software but on further redistributions and modifications which aren't normally allowed by EULAs at all.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020428
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Your argument doesn't hold up too well. Speed chip manufacturers are reselling automobile manufacturers BIOS code with slight modifications to the air/fuel/timing settings.
The GPL is binding because it gives you rights beyond normal copyright law (redistribution, etc). If you don't agree to the GPL you can still use the software, but you only have the rights granted by normal copyright.
Most other EULAs demand that you agree to them so that you have the rights that would normally be granted by copyright. This is in contradiction to the doctrine of first sale, and a few other legal norms. The GPL is not. If ANY EULA is binding it would be the GPL. This issue has really been discussed to death on slashdot already, just search around and you'll understand eventually.
Life is too short to proofread.
Software is protected by Copyright. When you buy a book, you have a right to resell it or copy for personal use, but you do not have a right to make copies (or derivatives) and distribute them.
The GPL gives you additional rights: the right to copy and make derivative works, provided your derivatives have the same license. In *no way* does the GPL take any rights away from you. You would not otherwise be able to redistribute a copyrighted work.
Under normal copyright, you have every right to take source code that you download and modify for your personal use. The GPL only kicks in if you try and redistribute.
Click-through EULAs that say you can NOT modify for personal use, or limit what you can use a product for, or in any other manner take away your rights are entirely different from a license like the GPL which extends your rights.
Under the First Sale Doctrine, MS can't sell you an XBox and tell you what you can do with it.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Lik-Sang are using our OpenSource eCommerce solution called osCommerce (shameless plug, I know).
They were always one of our best refernces. Dammit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did it occur to you that maybe M$ used Chinese law in Hong Kong ? Despite the rantings of the many US law does not apply outside the US but local law applies everywhere. Most international companies use local law teams to use local law to get the same effect. If they tried to use US law in China they would get laughed at, as they would in most of Europe.
If a company has assets in the US then they can be taken to court in the US but if they do not then there is nothing a US court can do, they do not even have an address to write to. M$ frequently tries to give the impression that they are able to apply there US values elsewhere but it does not work. Look at some of the European copyright cases, they cannot get their licenses to hold up in Europe. They prosecute under other laws, like fruad etc. and claim it as a victory against the sea borne bandits but it is just an ordinary case under ordinary European law.
I do not know any more about this case than I have read but I have not read anything that suggests that anything strange happened. China is having a crack down on things like this and would have been happy to use their own legal system to support M$.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Are you sure of that? The US runs a huge trade deficit each year that is typically paid for by Europeans and Japanese buying US stocks and bonds. I haven't checked the figures, but I would not be at all suprised to find that the percentage of US corps owned by the Europeans is larger than the percent of Euro corps owned by the US. It is probably even larger if you consider direct investment by Europeans in the US (e.g. the BMW factory in S. Carolina) versus US direct investment in Europe.
Same likely holds for the US versus Japan. The US got itself into quite a tizzy a few years ago after Sony bought one of the big entertainment conglamerates and some other Japanese corp bought Rockefeller Center in NYC.
That trade deficit does a lot to keep the worst excesses of the US in check. If we get too nasty, we would be unable to pay for all of the foreign goods we import. Of course it works both ways. Without the US trade deficit, European unemployment would be horrific instead of merely intolerable.
FreeSpeech.org
There's a difference in services though. While you pay for an Xbox, you own it, and should be able do what you want to it, but you don't own your cable box, it's still the property of the cable company, well, unless you buy one. However, the cable company still pays a fee to the companies that provide it content so you can have something to watch, so by modding a cable box to get free anything, you're cheating the cable company, and causing a real loss. The same goes for satellite. Console mods don't cheat anyone out of possible income to cover costs. I do agree with you on cell phones though, but the fact is, that cell phone companies don't make much money off of hardware, recurring revenue is their lifeblood.
MicroSoft's lead sales rep was recently on TechTV in an interview. On the record, currently XBox is losing over $150 per XBox sold, and he claimed they need for every XBox sold, the buyer must purchase *10* (TEN) games for it to become profitable for MicroSoft. 10 is an entirely OBSCENE amount of games for ANY console. The only one I can think of that had the MAJORITY of owners having bought more than 10 games is the ORIGINAL Nes. There is no real way MicroSoft will ever make the Xbox profitable unless they somehow buy out both Sega AND Nintendo (They tried already, Nintendo refused.) and released all the 5 Star games on their system.
The problem with these mod chips is that unauthorized and licensed software can be made without any profit going to MicroSoft, Nintendo, and Sony. They DEPEND on those sales. Releasing free software like the Linux distro will hurt the XBox as it needs to be SOLD and LICENSED to be legally viable on the XBox. I think everyone remebers the big Tetris fiasco on the original NES when it was released without Licensing from Nintendo first.. They owed the big N a ton of money and sales were halted. Nintendo needed that money to make profit margins. This is no different.
Does anyone know of any console owners who have bought at least 10 games for any console other than the original NES and possibly the PSX?
It seems to me that most of the participants in this discussion are ignoring the elephant in the room. Does a software EULA have any import? It's my understanding that no EULA has ever been held up in court. They're just a scare tactic, as
this page seems to indicate. So I can mod my XBox out the wazoo and M$oft can do nothing about it.
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
Though you make an interesting argument, I would like to point out the modifications you are suggesting in the above examples are all for the sole purpose of stealing a service from the provider . The cell phone may be a grey area, depending upon how the modification effects the operation of the phone. If 2 cells are required to ring both phones, then the mod could be considered theft.
As for the XBox mod chip, it can be legitimately used to unlock the bios of the box for use with other operating systems. Just because the XBox is being used for a purpose than the one it was designed for does not necessarily mean that that use is illegal. Using the XBox in this way would not be stealing products or services from Microsoft.
For example, if I decide to put my car up on blocks, remove the tire from one of the drive wheels, and use the vehicle as a crude engine for some kind of pumping operation (ala McGuyver), the Ford Motor Company or any other vehicle manufacturer you can think of cannot prevent me from doing this. They can only void my warranty.
Of course, IANAL.
--If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
All in all, New Zealand has 1 poisonous animal, a spider. If it bites you, you'll feel a bit ill. But that's all.
Sure we don't do as well in the sporting world, but we split the atom, climbed Everest and gave women the vote first, so there are some saving graces. Plus, you'll be just 3 hours flight from Sydney.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?