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