More on Microsoft vs. Lik Sang

Nice... by koh · 2002-10-10 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Another proof, if any more was needed, that US laws don't apply to US citizens only...

I wonder how much of a precendent that can make for the Kazaa case, among others...

--
Karma cannot be described by words alone.

Re:Nice... by Morgahastu · 2002-10-10 00:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

There was never any doubt. America laws are applicable to you if you sell/ship to america. If you have a building there, you are under their jurisdiction. There are no clear cut rules for internation e-commerce but thats the way its been working so far. You deal with americans, you deal with their laws.
Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-10 00:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

so, we are better off not dealing with them then.
Re:Nice... by Ravenn · 2002-10-10 01:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

You deal with americans, you deal with their laws.

Except: The US laws do not apply where it could inconvenience any US company.

Proof: The recent lawsuit against the tabacco companies, where the payout was in the millions. An Australian is going to try the same thing, but US law only allows a maximum of 30% of a US-based payout to be given to overseas claims. However, a US company (or person) can claim damaged, etc from another country that could total that county's yearly exports.

And yet, this is considered fair. Just because the US has nuclear weapons, and other politicians are weak-willed brown-nosers.

--
Of all the things you can accomplish by screwing up your face and swearing into a dark room, sleep is not one of them.
Re:Nice... by AxelTorvalds · 2002-10-10 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The US laws do not apply where it could inconvenience any US company.
Yes and no. This clearly isn't the case that shows that. You will never find an American company building modchips to help you pirate stuff on MS's platform. MS has too much power and it's against the law.
Giving modchips away might be a possibility but selling them is out.
Re:Nice... by wunderhorn1 · 2002-10-10 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most of that price increase is in taxes as greedy politicians attach 'sin taxes' to cigarettes.
It's not mere greed. The problem is that the elderly people dying of lung cancer are probably going to end up relying on the public dole for their medical bills, so they might as well start paying for them now (or funding new sports arenas, but I digress...)

--
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Re:Nice... by ChronosX · 2002-10-10 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right. Greed is not the exclusive motivator.

You're wrong. The additional cost to health care systems from smoking related illness is negligable, at best.

What's really going on? People with money and power are legislating morality. For whatever reason, they believe that smoking is a moral crime. In order to get other people to join their cause, they use an arsenal of tactics, including: persuasion, diversion, and out right lies.

They need to demonize cigarettes, so they blame all sorts of very loosely related phenomeons upon smoking, like the rising cost of healthcare. The cost of health care has been skyrocketing in this country as the number of people who smoke go down. That looks like an inverse proportion, not a direct one.

Smoking causes illness. I won't argue that. Smoking is only one of millions of causes of illness, but it's the only one we've dedicated a crusade against recently. Coincidence?

If an XBox were a car by MrRee · 2002-10-10 00:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seems to me hardware vendors don't have a leg to stand on concerning aftermarket modifications to their hardware. People have been moding cars for years with aftermarket parts.

Dangit, if I buy the hardware and want to modify it, I payed for it--it's mine--why shouldn't I be able to? Void the warranty, yes. But don't tell me I'm doing something legally wrong.

Re:If an XBox were a car by FreeUser · 2002-10-10 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

So how does that analogy play out with an X-Box? I can mod it and play around with it as long I don't use it to play any officially liscended X-Box games? Or use it to log onto an official X-Box network?

Unless and until congress sells what little digital future we have left down the river and mandates DRM, Palladium, or some similarly destructive requirement into our technology via a bill like those proposed by Senator "Disney" Hollings, none of the limits you imply are relevant. Unlike a modified car, which law restricts from being used on public roads, there are no such restrictions for a modified x-box.

If you've paid for the games legally, you are legally entitled to play them (or a backup copy you've made) on any x-box, modified or not. Ditton for running GNU/Linux or some other, hitherto unknown, operating system. Ditto for connecting to the internet, whether to browse the web or play UT3 (under GNU/Linux or, if a client exists, Microsoft's crippled offering). Ditto for anything else.

In other words, the x-box is perfectly legal to modify and use any way you like (short of violating criminal laws with respect to fraud, cracking into other people's systems, and the like). Microsoft is out of line, and in need of a serious bitch-slap, for what they've done and what they are trying to do.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

profit made on game titles by rjforster · 2002-10-10 00:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Selling the hardware is normally a loss-leader with the idea being to get you to buy loads of high profit margin games, which even out the overall deal in their favour.
As soon as you only buy the hardware (because with a mod-chip it makes a cheap general purpose computer) then the finances get all screwed.

Re:profit made on game titles by bludstone · 2002-10-10 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Selling the hardware is NOT normally a loss-leader. This is a general misconception about the gaming industry. There have been 2 consoles sold at a loss; Dreamcast and X-Box. The gamecube and the ps2 both make profits for nintendo and sony respectively. Sure, its not much.. may even be cents.. but please do not continue to push this rumor.

Just to back your argument up a bit. The basis of profit for sony, nintendo, and MS are, indeed, selling high profit margin games. But MS is the only one currently losing money on a console.... and they are losing money hand-over-fist.

--

no .sig
Re:profit made on game titles by XaXXon · 2002-10-10 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yet another mis-use of government to keep a bad business model alive..

Seems like MS is still stuck in the "New Economy".. If you don't want to lose money, don't sell something for less than it costs you. Plain and simple math.
Re:profit made on game titles by Scarblac · 2002-10-10 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

As soon as you only buy the hardware then the finances get all screwed.

Yes, but that's not your problem, is it? That's a "feature" of their business model. If people decide to use their property in some other way, or just decide to buy no games, then it may cost MS money - but that doesn't make it illegal! You never went into any agreement with them to let them keep making profit off you, you just bought some box cheaply.

On the other hand, these mod chips apparently contain a modified version of the Xbox's RAM, and therefore they're quite simply illegal, if they really do.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:profit made on game titles by matlokheed · 2002-10-10 01:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is it important that MS make money on their systems? If they're selling them at a loss, that's their problem. If I want to go out and purchase 1000 Xboxes to use as paperweights and they lose 1000 times whatever they lose on their system, that's what's called "their problem, not mine".
Just because MS is using a business model that's unprofitable for them, doesn't mean it's illegal to take advantage of it. MS losing money isn't what's questionably illegal about modchips. It's the questionable use and the method of their developments as far as I can see.
The fact that they're losing money is just the reason why they're pursuing the modchip makers so tenaciously.

--
"If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." -Willy Wonka
Re:profit made on game titles by Rydia · 2002-10-10 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would make sense if it were made with off the shelf components.

But it's not.

The components going into an xbox might be very similar to those in a standard PC, but ALL parts of it, even the usb adapters, I believe, are specially-designed and produced for the xbox and the xbox only. This means shorter production runs, higher per-component cost, and ultimately, higher total unit cost. I'm sure the cost of production has dipped some, but there is no possible way that they nixed that $200, especially with that cost cut.

The xbox is a spectacular loss leader, there is no plausible way for it not to be.

"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." by mumblestheclown · 2002-10-10 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am always underwhelmed by arguments that " {grey activity} should be legal because it would help {microsoft/mpaa/riaa} sell more {software/movies/music}."

The fact of the matter is that if under current law those companies are the rightsholders, it is up to them to decide whether or not to undertake some alternate distribution method. Just because under some economic analysis such grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable.

If you honestly a) hate RIAA and b) think that Napster et al increased music sales, then you would NOT have used napster, right?

Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." by CashCarSTAR · 2002-10-10 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Overall, P2P increases music sales. However, what has happened is that sales of top-40 profitmaking stuff have been replaced with sales of either indie artists or older material. (Often used). That's what the RIAA doesn't like. It's not about piracy, it's about market share.
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." by koh · 2002-10-10 00:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not about market share, it's about market _control_.

--
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." by ReconRich · 2002-10-10 01:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact of the matter is that if under current law those companies are the rightsholders

Hold on there cowboy. Modding your X-box can't be illegal because you own it. It is not, by anybody's definition licensed. I bought it. It is not software. It may contain software, which is presumably licensed, but that license cannot disseize me of property rights. The Mod itself could be illegal, that is, and illegal copying of copyrighted software, and that seems to be what is happening here. If I buy a mod chip from someone, they are responsible for the legality of what they are selling, not me, so long as there is a quid pro quo. Which seems to be where Lik Sang screwed up.

grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable

Your statement here makes the assumption that we all believe that sellers have the intrinsic right to dictate to buyers what they can and cannot do with the product which they have bought. This is so utterly ludicrous that I have to believe that you are astroturfing for the MPAA. I suggest you review the legal concept of quid pro quo. I'll give you a hint, its latin, and it means "this for that". And when you sell something You Give Up Ownership This is the fundamental principle of Capitalism. Get used to it.

-- Rich

--
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." by glesga_kiss · 2002-10-10 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

people that haven't bought a CD since Napster went beta.
I'm one of them. And you know what: I don't care. Here's why:
Music is our birthright. It has been around for far longer than any of us have. Every culture has developed their own music, often very unique and distinctive. It is a human heritage we should be proud of, music can inspire and influence many emotions and express our dreams and fears. It joins people together in a common bond that we all enjoy.
In the past 100 years, technology has been developed to deliver pre-recorded music. From these inventions an entire industry has grown. The term "record label" comes from the fact that artists would go to the labels (who had the required equipment) to get their music cut to vinyl. The label would then reproduce the record and give the artist a good cut of the profits. The "label" attached indicated who had produced the record.
Fast forward to the 60s. Pre-recorded music is getting very popular, e.g. The Beatles. Live musical performances are becoming rarer as alternatives to live music are becoming cheaper and more accepted into society.
As the labels gain more and more power over the next 30 years, they start to realise that they have a large influence in what people listen to. Shops begin to be forced to promote certain albums with threats like "sure, you can sell this, but you must also sell this other product in a prominent place in your store". Eventually radio is given the same blow, the stations begin to lose control of what they can play. Currently, Clear Channel control/own an unbelievable chunk of the radio market. You can't play their music unless you stick to their rules. You can't have your music played on their stations unless you paid them. When was the last time you heard a discussion or even the mention of p2p technology on commercial radio?
This control of the market leads to the "industry" we have today. There are only 7 companies that control almost all of the media you can access. Everything is controlled and managed. Have you ever listened to the radio to hear a song from an artist that you haven't heard from in a while, only to find that they have new material that gets announced a few days/weeks later? That's them at work, playing the older stuff to get you ready for the marketing.
Over the past 40 years, the profits to be made are staggering. CDs are incredibly cheap to manufacture, yet they are able to price-fix the market due to their control. This control of the industry keeps the small acts and labels (indies) down. Even the current "indies" in the "charts" are owned by the large companies and them using that name is an affront to what it means and stands for. The true indies are still there, but only a select few people ever hear about them, mostly through word of mouth. When was the last time you went to a record store and listened to music from an act you haven't heard of before?
In the past few years, things have only gotten worse. The Billboard charts is a catalogue of music for you to buy, nothing more. The acts that consistently make it are the same old drivel; bubble-gum pop for the masses. Yet, the makeup of these charts comes from sales and radio play. Limiting the data sources to only stick to major retailers that are already under control controls the "sales". The radio play is also very controlled as we have already seen. What sort of a system is that to run a popularity chart? A fixed and corrupt one.
What really gets to me the most however, is the fact that the artists get a ridiculously small cut of these revenues. They get tied into disgraceful contracts that control everything they do for years, and when it's over the industry, not the artists, own the rights to their work. Artists only really get rich through touring, that's where their profit lies. Many acts have had major hits/albums and ended up very poor or even owing the record labels money.
Over the past few years, technology has advanced to the point that anyone can easily record, promote and distribute music. This scares the music industry more than the loss of sales through piracy. Internet radio has turned people onto acts that they would have never heard of had they limited themselves to traditional media. My own personal tastes in music have evolved completely away from the commercial music out there. My hatred of the industry came long after I "abandoned" it, my tastes merely evolved based on what I have access to. They have now lost a customer. Me.
Every time you download a song instead of buying it, you are contributing to the downfall of this bastardisation of an industry. It interests me that they once compared p2p to "downloading communism". Cold War politics and the lack of understanding of the difference between Soviet totalitarism and true communism aside, the only thing that sounds like the negative impression they are trying to convey on p2p is ironically their own control of the industry. Downloading music is a statement against it. If the legal/moral issues bother you, don't download from the major labels. Get yourself onto Shoutcast Internet Radio and start listening to the genres that interest you. Grab a pen while you are at it and note down the names of the acts you like. Download some of their songs to see if you like them. If you do, support them by buying albums, merchandise and live performances. Especially the live performances.
But don't buy Brittany because it's "cool". It's not, your just following the rest of the sheep and "cool" is never defined by following other people. Even the "alternative" scenes, like the gothic Marylyn Manson culture is merely an extension of this market, but the kids into it believe they are expressing their individualism by dressing like each other and listening to the same music as each other!
A few companies should not be allowed to dominate the development of one of the most creative fruits of human culture. They should not be allowed to bribe government (what else are "campaign contributions"?) into making laws that protect their backward and repressive business models. Civil disobedience is a valid way to protest laws you don't agree with, as long you don't cause harm to others. It is technically impossible to stop p2p without complete centralised control and censorship of every single person in the worlds internet access. That is never going to happen. Anyone that doesn't get that belongs in the past like the dinosaurs they are. Where would we be today if the railroads had halted the development of the aeroplane because it harms their business model? Don't let the music industry do this to something as important as music. Please. Think of the children.

Scary by WeaponOfChoice · 2002-10-10 00:13 · Score: 0, Insightful

Another case where an illegal way to use a technology overrides all legal options for use thereof.

<rant>I have to wonder (seeing increased numbers of this kind of decision) how long it will be before PC's are provided in locked boxes and it is illegal for the user to open or in any way modify the contents. All of a sudden we would be renting an appliance rather than owning a system.</rant>

--

It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom

Freedom and Disclosure by nuggz · 2002-10-10 00:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

If it is your property you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
If as a condition of sale you agree to certain things, then you must conform to them, you are free to buy or not buy. But I should clearly and explicitly tell you BEFORE you purchase the product.
People should be free to have almost any contract they wish, I don't think the government should restrict my freedom by saying I can't enter into a fair and equitable agreement.

Undisclosed onerous conditions should not be be valid.

Isn't the majority of this legal? by Epeeist · 2002-10-10 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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.

I buy an Xbox (not that I would), it is therefore mine. I chip it, which presumably voids the warranty, but this is still legal because I own it.

If I use it to play pirated games then I am breaking the law because the vendor has copyright on the game, not because I have done anything illegal with the console.

If I purchased the console then it is up to me to decide what software I run on it. The OEM has no right to tell me what is and is not authorised software.

If I use it to play games from other regions then this should be fine, because the vendor of the game is applying a restraint on trade.

This article seems, like many others, to be offering a report that has little to do with logic or the law but has everything to do with partiality.

Re:What haven't we been told? by bludstone · 2002-10-10 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

either that or Lik-Sang will say "yeah, okay." and shut down shop.

Two weeks later a Sik-Lang site is up and doing the exact same thing.

It'll be like whack-a-mole :)

--

no .sig

Profit, on the hardware, think not by den_erpel · 2002-10-10 00:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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)... "

As far as I know about these things, the hardware is sold at cost or with a loss, and the manufacturers want to get profit out of the games.

Modding it would not increase their profit, instead, as you are running software where M$ (or Nintendo or Sony) they are not paid for.

On the other hand, Sony does support Linux on their PS/2 and develops for it. I guess that they think (rightfully) that if you buy a PS/2, you will most likely buy games for it too. Having Linux (and network on it) might just be the extra push the customer needs.

--
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."

Licenses by sql*kitten · 2002-10-10 00:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Well, if you aren't, then the GPL isn't binding either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing" anything when you use GPL'd code. Why is it that the EULA is wrong, but the GPL, BSD license etc are OK? After all, in the Unix community (or the traditional Unix community, at any rate) programmers and users were largely indistinguishable, so using source code is analogous to using a consumer application.

Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

Re:Licenses by Wdomburg · 2002-10-10 00:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

>Well, if you aren't, then the GPL isn't binding
>either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing"
>anything when you use GPL'd code.

As has been pointed out numerous times before, there is nothing preventing you from *using* GPL code without agreeing to the GPL.

The license is for *distribution* not use. As you have no right to distribute copyrighted works otherwise, you are bound to seek licensing before doing so, in which case the authors provide the GPL.

Matt
Re:Licenses by Billly+Gates · 2002-10-10 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Copying or using any copyrighted program is illegal. To even use the software or copy it, you must agree to the gpl. If not then the fsf has a case agaisnt you since you are in violation of copyright. So if the gpl is not legally binding then you can not use or copy their products.

The ms EULA is far different. MS by law can only dictate whether or not " you can use" or " copy the product". All this garbage about installing drm software without your consent hidden in some EULA in a service pack or agreeing not to benchmark or say anything bad about ms on a website is not supported in copyright law. The terms are rediculous. Yes a legal agreement, is binding if you actually sign a legal contract with a notory present .

Not by clicking a button or reading a notice saying you must agree to the EULA inside this cd before opening it. That is true bs and I doubt will hold up in court. Bill Gates mentioned the EULA in an interview in 1980 as an agreement similiar to petro-chemical plants allowing Exxon to use their patents for oil refineries. I do not buy this. No singed contract, no legitimacy. And signing permission to use something thats patented is different then some vague non signed agreement about doing something that does not cover "right to use" or "right to copy".

I would seriously not be supprised if ms in the future puts a sticker on the xbox stating "By opening the box, you agree to the terms of the EULA inside". If ms did this, it would still not apply but I wonder if it could be argued on behalf of Microsoft that the hardware is copyrighted?

What can and can not be a copyrighted work?

If its argued that hardware is copyrighted, then even using it without their permission is agaisn't copyright laws. I know this sounds crazy but I fear this is where the IP world is heading. They want patent like powers of copyrighted works, and to top it off they still want to own them after they are purchased by a consumer! Before you know it, auto repair shops could be sued by car manufactors for violating copyright laws by changing oil and reparing their vehicles.

Anyway ms has no case unless they dare to bring up the issue of the hardware itself being copyrighted which I do not think they will do unless they are desperate.

--
http://saveie6.com/

So sue me. by TechnoLust · 2002-10-10 00:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Good point, but really it doesn't matter. You can sue me because you don't like the shirt I'm wearing, or I can sue you because I don't like your pants. It doesn't matter if there are any laws involved, if you have enough money, you can force me to stop wearing that shirt, and maybe even pay you damages for the "trauma" of seeing me wear that shirt. I really wish it didn't work that way, and there was a time when people actually worked their problems out WITHOUT calling in a lawyer, but everybody these days is greedy, and they want to sue and get $millions in damages.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

Re:So sue me. by TechnoLust · 2002-10-10 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seems to me that the answer to that is as obvious as you say the imperfection of the legal system is. How can soldering some IC chips on a PCB be illegal? That doesn't hurt anyone. What it comes down to is when they are sold. In other words, is there a legal reason for someone to buy these. I think the XBox Linux project would be a very good reason to have one, and I would like to have one for that reason. I have an Xbox and several games. If I want a game, I'm going to go out an buy it. I want a modchip just because I love electronics and I like Linux, so I think it would be cool to run it on the Xbox. Microsoft will argue, however, that the main reason people want these chips is for pirating games.
I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can and can't do with hardware that I purchased, but it happens everyday. My cable company told me I couldn't modify my box to get free pay-per-view. When I left them, my satellite company said I couldn't modify my card to get all the channels. (I have a friend who PAYS for all the channels, but he has a hacked card, because he wants to see the local networks, and because the cable companies are so greedy, his satellite provider couldn't offer it.) My cell phone provider tells me I can't modify my phone's ESN so that I can have TWO phones with ONE number, so I can leave one in the car and not have to pay a second monthly fee and for more minutes. So, let's don't single MS out, because they aren't the only ones doing this. That doesn't make them right, but look at the whole picture. Not only is this attacking the software giant, but also the Communications industry giants. Laws don't matter when there is that much money behind it.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Re:So sue me. by Stradivarius · 2002-10-10 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

The case in question is not frivalous. MS is correct. The mod chips are illegal under current law. They are circumvention devices. They contain copyrighted code. The names probably even infringe on trademark.

That's far from certain or correct:

A) Whether the mod chips are "circumvention devices" is certainly matter a debate. Witness a recent Sony case in Australia (whose law is similar to the U.S.'s DMCA), which found the chips not to be a "circumvention device" under the law. And thus, not illegal.

B) There's a very good chance the chips do not contain any code that is copyrighted by MS. They don't need to. They might reverse-engineer some technical information, and use that to create their own code, but that is not the same as copying MS code, and does not infringe on any MS copyrights.

C) The names may infringe on trademarks, but that does not make the product itself illegal. It just makes selling it under that name illegal - the company could still sell the product under a non-trademark-infringing name.

Yes. That's how courts work. You sue or are sued. A judge decides.

The alternative is no courts, just executive authority to arrest/imprision/confiscate. That has a history of working really well. You think corporations are too powerful now?

Judges toss lawsuits everyday of the week. Its a routine part of the legal system.

I think you're missing the larger, implicit point of the previous poster's comment. It's not that we shouldn't have a judicial system, it's that the current system has a significant bias towards those with wealth. I.e. someone with wealth can afford to file a suit they know is without merit, because it will cost the target of the suit legal fees. If the target doesn't have the money for a lawyer, the wealthy (corporation or individual) essentially wins by default because the target has to stop doing what they're doing, regardless of if it's actually legal. Sure, the suit will eventually get tossed, but in the meantime those bills sure add up fast. Many people can't afford that.

The solution isn't to scrap the legal/judicial system, it's to improve it. How to do that is an interesting and complex question. It's not clear how to easily discourage this sort of legal skirmishing without discouraging legitimate claims as well.
Re:So sue me. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-10 02:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is not insightful. The cable company, satellite company, and phone company are not selling hardware - they are selling services that require specific hardware, for which you signed some sort of terms of use agreement. The fact that they gave/sold you certain hardware to receive these services does not give you the right to use the hardware to receive services you haven't paid for. Microsoft has sold a box that you can use, but no services and therefore no agreements. Your examples are irrelevant due to this difference.

(I was going to point out that one could buy an xBox as a second DVD player and MS would lose money, but I just found (according to Amazon) that DVD functionality won't work without the "Kit" - a remote and a sensor. We could have an entirely new thread on if hacking to allow DVD playback is legal.)
Re:So sue me. by tshak · 2002-10-10 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

How can soldering some IC chips on a PCB be illegal?

It's not - that's what people are missing. Open up your XBox and do whatever you want with it. Create a business that sells circumvention devices and it's a whole other story.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:So sue me. by Babbster · 2002-10-10 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Console mods don't cheat anyone out of possible income to cover costs.
They sure as hell cheat someone if people use them to play games they didn't buy. I would also note that the price of a thing that is sold is rarely intended simply to "cover costs." Generally speaking - and this goes for most countries in the world and not just the "evil" US - someone is trying to make a profit as well.
I won't try to argue the legality of copying BIOS or making an XBox run Linux (I already tried to do a bit of that above), but the fact that people are able to mod their XBox and then play stolen games is a significant point against mod chips. The fact that people can ALREADY purchase computers to run Linux and write software makes this use even less compelling.

Microsoft aren't trying to make money... Yet by Dolph · 2002-10-10 00:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Regarding point 3 (that Microsoft would encourage development of systems such as Mandrake for the XBox, etc.), I don't think this would be that case.

At the moment, Microsoft aren't trying to make money (and they're clearly not doing so anyway). Rather they're trying to wrest control of the market from Sony (and, to a lesser extent, Nitendo and other console-makers). Basically they're trying the gain a monopoly in the market (ala PCs).

Once they have this control, _then_ they can begin to make money. They're sitting on enough cash to run as a loss-leader if they want, lose money at the outset, and then increase prices once people are tied in.

The development of alternative systems for the XBox may increase the purchase of the consoles short-term, but long-term it opens up the device to others, destroying the whole idea of monopolizing (i.e. they can't increase the price of games development on the system, of all of the software houses can just roll out a version of the game for Mandrake on the XBox to exactly the same end-users).

I think Microsoft will be no more keen to encourage 3rd party O/S development on the XBox than they are to encourage it in the PC market (and they're in a much better position to control it in the case of the XBox, as they control the hardware directly).

--
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... Oh, no. It's just an eyelash.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-10 00:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why legal questions on slashdot? by cardshark2001 · 2002-10-10 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

So rarely do I see a post where someone says "I am a lawyer specializing in X", where X is the subject in dispute on /.

Much, much more often, I see endless "IANAL, but...". So, I have my own ask slashdot. What is the damn point of asking legal questions here? This is news for nerds, not news for barristers.

--
WWJD? JWRTFA!

Re:Why legal questions on slashdot? by troff · 2002-10-10 13:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because all the stuff these barristers get up to is eventually going to come down on the whole world - which includes us nerds.

Not to mention, a nerd has a natural inclination to learn things. Scientas est potestas, as my old high school motto used to say.

And the reverse frequently applies too. by Woodie · 2002-10-10 00:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Amazingly enough in the business world, foreign laws are often applied to US businesses. Wow - it's called reciprocity. Amazing.

Re:License & Copyright by iceT · 2002-10-10 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if such an agreement was included, it is questionable if this holds any legal value.

I bought an XBOX, and since the agreement wasn't on the outside of the box, Buying it is not an implicit agreement of any kind.

It's not like DirecTV where, when you buy the equipment, they open it right there, take down your information, the box serial number, and make you sign an agreement about establishing service...

Also, Several of the chips that Lik-Sang sold didn't include any BIOS software... So it literally was just a collection of parts, and a method of connecting those 'parts' to an XBOX... I'd think if they included instructions on how to hook it to your toaster, there's not much basis for a lawsuit.

--
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.

Not our problem by TamMan2000 · 2002-10-10 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The customer should not be made responsible for a poor business model. It is microsoft's own fault that they aren't making money on the Xbox, and if they don't like that, then they shouldn't sell it at.

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...

Re:Didn't you hear? by surprise_audit · 2002-10-10 01:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

More to the point, M$ isn't just a US company. They have (and/or could acquire very quickly) subsidiaries in any country where they wanted to take action. Firing a full spread of legal photon torpedoes is then simply a question of hiring enough local legal talent to entangle the alleged offender so deep in their own legal system that said offender goes out of business from spending capital on their defence.

And if that ploy fails to attain the desired result, $40Bn of cold, hard cash can exert a lot of leverage on the offender's ISP, telco provider, utilities providers, etc.

Heck, it probably wouldn't cost a vast amount to buy out the offender's janitorial company and then slide a couple of hit-persons in among the cleaning staff to sabotage their equipment. How resilient would your network be in the face of electronic noise makers near strategic routers, or even simply snagging cables and straining them?

Um...No by Duds · 2002-10-10 01:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hardware has always been sold at a loss. Including the NES, SuperNES and N64, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn and both PS1 and 2.

Modding the X-Box is playing MS's game by pieterh · 2002-10-10 02:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've said this before and other posters have said the same. Of course MS is after Sony's market, but they are very patient. IMHO they believe that normal PCs, running normal Windows, is the best gaming platform.

But PC software is always pirated. What they have to build is a DRM PC. And this is what they are making. The X-Box is a practice run.
Their goal is a DRM PC. Cheap hardware, but impossible to run pirate software.

The payoffs from a DRM PC are much higher than any game console. And I believe this is what MS is aiming at. Modding the X-Box just pushes this process along faster than it would go otherwise.

--
My blog

Why XBox by Ektanoor · 2002-10-10 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well I don't own an X-Box and don't plan to do it. Anyway, I understand why people want Linux on XBox. The problem has tow sides:

1. It's a challenge. And Linux community is a world of challengers. The challenge may be making some noses to all-mighty M$. But the mainstream is probably following the old true challenge of getting one more piece of hardware and putting it to test. The versality and universality of Linux was made of these "Will Linux run on Sparc, PPC, Palmtop, S/390...? Even Sony's PlayStation couldn't run from this mood. And let's remember that some people referred to XBox + Linux in the way - "Sony PS-2 was first now it's time for XBox". And they probably are not hunting games, like some lamers speak here. Their objective is more the traditional "hack the thing".

2. XBox goes much cheaper than the traditional computer. Some have already noted this... And if you wanna use it as a cheap server, why not?

So these are probably tow vectors that move the crowd. What will happen if M$ cuts the trend. Well it will just loose customers, nothing else. Because if they are not for games then XBox will be nothing for them. And they may loose a large piece of the market. I don't think that Linux hackers can repeat Lego Mindstorms phenomena but there are parallels that force me to remind this story. A few years ago Lego launched is small and cute robot, planning to sell some 10000 units. However, the thing was not so popular among chidren as among hackers (I even have one). At first they didn't like this and tried to charge with all this copyright boolaboo. However when they saw sales jumping over 100000 (10x the expectations), they even started to make publicity to some of these guys.

Its about linux....riiiight by pickleboy · 2002-10-10 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's be realistic. How many XBox consoles have been sold in order to load linux on them? Probably less than 100. This is not about the financial loss on the consoles, it is about software piracy available by the use of mod chips.

Funny by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-10 03:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

"..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"

Microsoft support Linux? That was a joke right..?

Re:darnit by martyn+s · 2002-10-10 03:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Without copyright the GPL wouldn't be NECESSARY.

It seems like you thought this through some other time, and were looking for a post to respond to, even if it wasn't exactly a "response". I, in fact, believe in copyright as a necessary construct of the law, as the constitution puts it, to promote progress in the arts and useful sciences (or useful arts and sciences?). My personal belief is that copyright should be at most 14 years, and it should not place any restrictions on derivative works. But this is just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with my original post, or the discussion.

By ANYONES measure, even those who are big supporters of copyright, this is abuse. It's kind of like Sega taking out patents on the controller connectors and such, in order to lock people out from selling products that let them hack the Dreamcast. It really has nothing to do with the patent. But by patenting an intrinsic part of the connector, you can prevent anyone from hacking your hardware. This stuff about sega is from a similar story, about a year ago, about customs blocking Lik-Sang, because of some Dreamcast related hacking product.

So are we renting the X-boxes? by ruiner13 · 2002-10-10 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

If we can't use the hardware like we want, wouldn't that imply that it's a rental or lease agreement? If I buy my house, I'm allowed to remove the security system if I don't like it. Sure it's there to protect me, but if I don't want it, I have that choice right? Now if i was renting a house, or leasing it, I could see not being able to modify it. The same goes for cars. I can remove the CPU chip from it and replace it with a "modded" one if I own the car, but they'd be pissy if I was leasing it.

So, following on that idea, when M$ releases the X-box-2 (or whatever clever name their ad guys come up with) comes out, they'll let me trade in for the new model, right? Or if I accidentally, say, bash it with a sledgehammer, would they sue me? It's "their hardware", or so they imply by not letting us mod it.

I dunno, I think they are crossing a lot of lines here that they shouldn't. I feel that once I buy something outright, I should be able to do whatever the heck I want with it. Tell bill gates that he can't remodel his house, or replace parts in his car and see how he feels.

--

today is spelling optional day.

Slashdot Mirror

More on Microsoft vs. Lik Sang

49 of 550 comments (clear)