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.
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
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.
"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
They don't want to sell devices, they want to sell games...
I'm still undecided as to whether the Xbox is a honeypot for MS to see how easy people find it to crack the hardware, in preperation for whatever is going to replace it. I'd like to think it isn't, but then for some reason XP refuses to return any results if I search my entire system for "*.java" in XP, and I'm a Java Developer...
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
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?
It seems to me that this whole situation isn't as clear-cut as it may first appear...for starters, there only seems to be once source to confirm that it was Microsoft who ordered Lik Sang closed down (which admittedly was Microsoft itself, but the Australian branch, which from prior experience I know shouldn't be trusted :0).
:0)
Also, why are Lik-Sang still collecting e-mail addresses for people who want to be told when they are back online? Why not just shut down the domain and save on hosting bills? I know most of you are going to say that it's a Microsoft ploy to get a list of addresses of mod chippers, but that's a little farfetched even by MS standards.
The much more likely scenario is that MS doesn't want Lik-Sang to close down altogether (betcha they sell a whole pile more PS2 chips than they do X-Box ones), they just want them to stop selling X-Box mod chips...in which case, the site will be back up in a few weeks, when all the legal problems are sorted and Lik-Sang have "smelt the glove" of Microsoft
===
You know that guy who stole your girlfriend away from you in the summer of '95? He's going to die.
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.
"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.
You got busted for making (or altering) illegal (or otherwise legal) hardware for a closed system.
Next time anyone does this, make the *source* available so we can do it ourselves, and not force us to pay a red cent to make it work.
*sniff sinff* Microsoft busted us for being a monopoly!
Boo Hoo. Post the source, post the how to's before thinking about selling the unit.
> 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.
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!
The answers to the questions are IMHO:
1. No, you don't sign an agreement when you buy an XBox. Even if such an agreement was included, it is questionable if this holds any legal value.
2. Profit is not truly an issue in this conflict.
3. There are a few reasons why a MOD chip (and/or its sale) can be illegal:
- The MOD chip contains copyrighted code from the original.
- The MOD chip qualifies as a circumvention device under the DMCA or similar non-US law.
These are usually the reasons a MOD chip is pulled off the market by a court order.
Microsoft won't allow anyone to mod their xbox because then anyone could write software for it. If this were to happen, than M$ wouldn't get any money from game publishers, etc for allowing said publishers to distribute games for xbox. They might allow someone to port linux or other OSs to the xbox, but only if that someone were willing to pay the same fees as game publishers (or perhaps even higher fees), but I doubt it. Even then M$ would probably force the ported OS to use DRM, so it would only run the software they chose (ie, whose developers payed them).
"I love the smell of burning Karma in the morning." Codito Ergo Sum.
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.
I'm no microsoft fan - BUT
When I first heard of this happening, my first thought was that they arent cracking down because of *what* they are doing, more of because of the methods.
Is the mod chip in fact, a bootleg hacked microsoft bios? Therefore, the claim would not be against anybody modding anything, but in fact a case against a company for distributing microsofts copyrighted code (the bios).
I could be wrong of course - but I bet thats the angle of the lawyers above all others.
If they DO start putting systems in locked boxes, which they won't because boxed components account for a large slice of hardware sales. But if they DID, well, I've got a large pair of bolt cutters for just such an occasion. :-)
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
As always, money talks!
1) M$ wants to make money from games and selling expensive SDKs.
2) M$ introduces a console called XBox constructed from a PC with some signing stuff in HW.
3) XBox gets modded fairly quickly.
4) XBox can now run Linux.
5) M$ sees a potential threat divided in two parts a. one can copy games, b. one can use the XBox to pull M$'s legg (running Linux on it).
6) M$ sues the hell out off anyone getting to close.
7) M$ ends up with a huge pile of money!
Please excuse me ranting, but I get so tired of their lame attempts to introduce signing. Use a custom CPU with on-chip signing, a motherboard without any standard devices etc. and it will become harder. They could not for a minute have thought that a PC based console would be left unhacked.
As for custom conponents being more expensive - the *big* money can be found in games, not the actual hw. If they were sure to sell games they could just give the thing away!
I guess this business is just so young, maybe 50 years of serious computer/software business so far, that these failures are just result of immaturity. In my opinion there is nothing so different in this industry of ours and it should just follow the same rules as with everything else - with only minor changes.
Can someone please explain to me what laws where used to stop Lik Sang?
0x or or snor perron?!
This statement makes no sense. Why would MS support Linux - their sworn enemy? Why would they make it easy for people to buy their hardware and run Linux on it?
Even if MS didn't care about Linux, just look at the facts. The Xbox is basically a PC. However, it's sold at a huge loss. The sales of games make up for this loss. However, if everyone buys the Xbox at a loss, and then doesn't buy any games, but installs Linux on it, and uses it as a PC, MS loses a shitload of money. Without the Xbox, these same people wanting a PC would have to buy one from Dell, or something, which comes with Windows XP and other MS software, so MS has made money on software, without losing any money on hardware.
The only reason MS entered the game console market is to make money. They need the games in order to make money. Without them, they lose, and the Xbox will be as dead as the Nintendo PowerGlove.
Yes, you _can_ buy an Xbox, and run Linux on it with a modchip, but why would you want to? Why would you want to use MS hardware, which is a stipped down, shitty PC, and run Linux on it, when you can get a mini form-factor (XPC) bare-bones system for under $150, add a processor and drive, and be up and running on a better system without having to look at an MS logo everyday? Sure, I understand the "because I can", argument, and yeah, it's cool to make Linux run on something that wasn't mean to explicitly support it, but really, it's not like it's going to become a true platform.
That having been said, I am in no way supporting MS' extension of US laws to foreign companies. That does in fact suck.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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!"
A man has been arrested to taking a sledge hammer to an Xbox after Microsoft said, "modification and disassembly of the XBox hardware is against the EULA"
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
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?
Not particularly, no. Of course MS is under no obligation to support you, or your box if it breaks. Also don't necessarilly expect it to work with the Live service. In other words, you're free to break it, just don't dump on MS when it breaks or you can't use it with some new game, or their online service, they are well within their rights to exclude you if they are able.
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?)
Ahh, now here's where you get to the quasi legality. It's the production for profit of mod-chips that has dubious legal value. Ever wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy a cable descrambler? You might be able to avoid them - but you have to show up in court, and pay the legal fees when they sue you.
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?
Microsoft is concerned about a larger picture. Of having the X-Box be an end unit in a network of units. They want to make sure that the network is somewhat secure. By supporting something like Linux on the X-Box, they help to compromise their plans.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Plain vanilla copyright allows you to make modifications to software/hardware you've purchased. For example, you can purchase Windows NT Workstation and hex edit the bits that cripple Workstation so that it acts more like Server. You may not however redistribute it.
Microsoft hates the idea because they want to sell Server, which is just a recompile (with a few other tools) for much much more. They claim that you are bound to the End User License Agreement when you open the shrink-wrap package you forfeit this and many other rights. Of course, they don't get your signature, and most people never have any idea of what this license says, and some would say it's plain illegal to force customers to waive so many rights just to use software, so it's kind of up in the air.
I imagine this same EULA makes mod chips illegal. EULAs have not been sufficiently validated in court (cases seem to go both ways for a number of reasons), so you're rolling the dice by challenging it.
However, IANAL.
Greetz DJB, JS
No, you're absolutely right. The real problem is that Microsoft is using copyright law to make sure no one reverse engineers their hardware. To me, that's just an abuse of copyright. It really has nothing to do with protected the BIOS that they worked so hard on. It's a way of closing up their hardware, and having the law to back it up. I don't like that.
I'm firmly of the opinion that the DRM features are present in the XBox as a practice run.
They can hone their skills on known hardware.
Thus being cracked and modded is a successful operation for them. They even get practice on how to oil the wheels of litigation.
All this with not much reputation to lose, after all it's *only* a games console.
Once they've got it sorted out with their own hardware design they will be in a position to know how to issue "DRM Compiant" certificates for motherboards, for a fee. Then we'll be paying an MS tax on hardware without anyone arguing about pesky OS's. Their patent on DRM OS's may mean that there'll be another license fee to pay should *your* OS want to use the DRM facilities built into *your* motherboard.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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!
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.
Because you can now run Linux on the Xbox, the mod-chip makers actually have a better chance in the legal squabbles.
The mod-chip becomes a "reverse-engineering" product, with verifyable "non-infringing" use.
I.e. since running Linux on an Xbox is perfectly legal, and you need a mod-chip to make it happen, the mod-chip manufacturer gets some legal protection, since it is not only used for "illegal" purposes.
P.S. IANAL, please Fla^H^H^HCorrect me if I'm wrong.
Amazingly enough in the business world, foreign laws are often applied to US businesses. Wow - it's called reciprocity. Amazing.
Lik-Sang are using our OpenSource eCommerce solution called osCommerce (shameless plug, I know).
They were always one of our best refernces. Dammit.
If points 1 and 2 are illegal, then the Mandrake Linux XBox Project is in the same boat since that requires modification to the XBox's components to make it work (and a custom USB connection).
No offense to anyone, but why the hell would anyone want to make the XBox run Linux? Just because you can? It doesn't help, it doesn't make it faster, all I can see that it does do is void your warranty for the sake of being l337.
Heck, even that vengful guy who owns petswarehouse, Robert "Look at me funny and I'll sue you" Novak, has demonstrated all you need is the desire and free time and you can fsck up people and businesses.
Somewhere in my Journal I detailed a minor skirmish I had with someone on Hong Kong (where I belive Lik Sang is) over an eBay item worth $30. They hauled the guy in and I finally got something. I was amazed how ready the police were to act on a complaint by one measely american. By that token, I'm assuming, Hong Kong will do it's best to show foreign business that they can count on their support. After all, Shanghai and several other cities on the SE coast of China would be more than happy to take their business.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
first, shame on you.
second, very few people care about this kinda thing. m$ knows that. there will be a small underground thing that will exist for this stuff, but it'll never hit critical mass as long as people buy products that contain these ridiculous eulas. i mean, how fscked up is that?! only to use and not tinker with!?
along with the copyright and patent systems that need to be reformed, we have to get rid of eulas. they do nothing but tie our hands and are the most ridiculous thing ever!
when bill was getting his house built, the contractors should have made him sign some ridiculous eula stating that he could not sue or call for repairs if anyone (including the contractors themselves) broke in; if something in the house went wrong; or if he wanted something in the house changed (i.e. customized). instead he would have to wait until the contractor (or any contractor for that matter) decided that they *might* wanna fix something.
Oh, and the contractor would be able to come back at any time and hang out there. better yet, kick bill out and take over for an undetermined time. all the while touting expensive upgrades that won't work and take years to complete and are never delivered on time and to spec.
but sadly, we don't live in that world. anyway, i specifically will not buy an xbox because of stupid crap like this. if i buy a machine of any kind, i expect to 100% own it. and i don't want *anyone* telling me what i can and can't do with it. because after all, it's mine! down with the dmca - for real. and quit buying these things until they change this sort of stuff! jeeze..
I cant understand all this ranting. Just run linux n a real PC or something else. The Xbox is so far away from open source that putting open source on it is near to result in a matter/antimatter explosion. Give the beast up and buy something else instead. Why dont put some effort on getting more games ut on linux? I understand that some people does mods because of the challange but in this case its just helping MS getting their Palladium/DRM system tested for free.
Ill say it again if you want to run linux buy a real computer instead of crippling it on an Xbox.
As of the ability of making games without paying licenses i would prefer an open gaming console instead. Todays system of paying licenses to sell games for Xbox, nintendo and PS is an artificial buisiness model and should go away.
HTTP/1.1 400
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...
If you do business in any country, your business in that country is subject to the laws of that country. Been that way for a l-o-n-g time, folks.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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?
You could probably get away with that.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
I think MS is right is using the copyright laws to keep people from altering there hardware. YOU, as an individual can MAKE YOUR OWN Mod chip, BUT going out and buying one, even if it is not for profit is wrong, Its like the black box for cable to unscrable all the channels, there is really no legal use for this technology so it should not be permitted to be sold, The same goes with Mod Chips, there is said "grey area" like the linux project, But if one wishes to do the linux project one must fist make there own mod, I don't think telling people how to make there own mod should be illegal since it is just sharing of information, But making it for some one is/should be illegal. Thats my views on the matter, Most likly I am in the manority, since I also think downloading MP3s with P2P programs is illegal
You make it sound like MS has a right to profit. That would be like saying I have the right to happiness. I have the right to pursue happiness, MS has a right to pursue profit, there are no guarantees.
If MS has a bad business model that is their own fucking problem, not the moders!
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Yet.
Is it a deliberate policy, or is it because Ford is a car company and so far TPTB there haven't really heard of the DMCA, or that they could use it to go after car chippers?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...is a perfect distillation of exactly why America owns Europe today.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please, someone tell us what the XBOx license is, if any, so we can stop this navel-gazing about what we 'should' and 'should not' be able to do with someone's X-Box.
If there's a license attached to it, and it prohibits X, then you shouldn't be able to do X, and if you want to do X, you shouldn't buy the XBox. Deal with it.
This is like the GPL, I might believe I should be able to do WHATEVER I want with source code (a la BSD licensing), including redistributing and/or selling modified versions without source code, but if the GPL puts restrictions on me that I don't like, then I shouldn't use GPL'ed code.
People have a choice - to use or not use something with a particular license. Just because someone might not like a license does not mean they can supercede it unilaterally with terms THEY deem reasonable.
So please, someone with an XBox enlighten us ?
So if you can't do X, all you have left is a "box" - what's the point of that?
btw, I thought we haven't given in to the whole "hardware license" thing just yet, and maybe, just maybe, we can still buy something and do whatever with it, without the company telling us what we can and cannot do with something we supposedly own (and owning is something I like to do after I give away money)
sic transit gloria mundi
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem is that Microsoft loses money on the hardware, and they make it back on the software. So if you allow users to circumvent the price they pay for the software, Microsoft loses in the end.
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.
It isn't the Producer has the power and the Consumer doesn't.
The big guy has the power, the small guy doesn't.
I produce content, you produce content, companies produce content. That is what I think people have to realize, content providers are everyone, not just the large entertainment companys.
Most consumer protection laws are really just trying to protect the small guy, typically an individual.
The overwhelming power of some large companies and their monopoly or near monopoly on certain services is a problem, and that is why we regulate and legislate it.
I think that is the point of regulating, fo rhte government to step in when the relative size is so different one party is coerced into a contract.
My answer is just don't buy it if it isn't worth it. This is why I only buy about 1 CD and 2 or 3 movies a year now.
I haven't bought an XBox and I'm not going to mod one if I get one because it's just too much of a pain. But here's the thing I can think of.
If the XBox is basically a computer, it can run an MP3 player. It has Ethernet. I've got an SMB share with all the music I own on it. I'd like to have that playable in the family room as well as at my desk. It already has video-out, display to a TV. No need of monitor.
Compare this to one of those (admittedly sweet) Shuttle boxes. $150 plus the price of a processor, plus the price of a 5.6" LCD panel, some kind of IR/remote, HD, Memory... Cost of time to mod the case to include the display panel or whatever...
IF I could buy an XBox, plug it in and drop a 'networked MP3 player' CD in the drive and be playing my music collection in a few minutes, that's a BIG advantage.
Of course, I can't.
... "I read part of it all the way through." -- Movie Mogul Sam Goldwyn (and some slashdot readers)
The Saturn was the first "sold at a loss." Saturn + Dreamcast at loss = Sega almost bankrupt.
The Gamecube was admitted to be sold at a loss (admitted by Nintendo at launch) but it was small. Estimates were that it was sold at a $5-$15 loss, compared to the $200 or so on the Xbox. And that was only at launch, they got costs down real quick and were profitable before and after the price cut.
The "all consoles" are sold at a loss is a strange rumor. They have always been sold "at cost," retailers make ZERO markup on the consoles, or at least that was the case in the 80s. We used to get our games through a wholesaler through a family friend in retail (wholesale to mom-and-pop stores, not Toys R Us level stores), we'd save about $8 a game, but couldn't get ANY savings on consoles. I think we saved sales tax, but I don't remember if we had to pay it through their store.
Alex
But PC software is always pirated. What they have to build is a DRM PC. And this is what they are making. The X-Box is a practice run.
Their goal is a DRM PC. Cheap hardware, but impossible to run pirate software.
The payoffs from a DRM PC are much higher than any game console. And I believe this is what MS is aiming at. Modding the X-Box just pushes this process along faster than it would go otherwise.
My blog
The consumer should not be punished, i.e. limited in action and thought, because Microsoft took a risk and it is now losing money. They took the risk, not us.
This is an example of a company that is failing at something trying to use the might of the legal system to protect themselves. Why is it that so many people are upset over the perception that Microsoft's competitors are using the law to protect themselves(with the assumption that they cannot compete) yet many of those same people would support Microsoft doing the same thing(with the assumption that they cannot compete)?
Hypocrasy at its best.
Mike
Well I don't own an X-Box and don't plan to do it. Anyway, I understand why people want Linux on XBox. The problem has tow sides:
1. It's a challenge. And Linux community is a world of challengers. The challenge may be making some noses to all-mighty M$. 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.
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
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.
Can you imagine purchasing a car and not being allowed to install a turbo, or better exhaust...or modifying it to run on fryer oil?
Check out full explanation here
I believe the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act allows for the purchase of accessories like mod chips:
" Tie-In Sales Provisions:
Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.
In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.
While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.
While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty."
It is my understanding of this act that no accessories manufacturer is required to get permission from the original manufacturer before producing the add-in parts.
Manguson-Moss also allows for "unintended use"...that means you can buy a hammer and use it as a paper weight if you like (as long as using it as a paper weight does not result in the destruction of the hammer). So Microsoft can not prohibit you from running other software on your Xbox.
How did Microsoft pull this off? MS must have better attorneys.
-ted
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
The alternative is no courts, just executive authority to arrest/imprision/confiscate.
Here, in the free-for-real world, outside of the US, we let whoever loses the case pay for all the legal costs, for the other side too.
This does not mean that the good guy always wins, but it does mean that the poor guy can always fight, because money is not (immideately) an issue. You can not win by simply let your opponent exhaust all his means. You must win by actually have a case.
We also do not turn our legal system into a circus whatwith all the show for the jury, piefights and slander. We do not usually have all these fancy trickeries and technicalities that really are laughable - and usually only serve the purpose of costing money for the poor guy.
It works pretty well for us. Maybe something to consider, a semi-fair system? Nah. Won't happen somewhere where the guys with money makes the laws. Too bad.
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.
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.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
"I feel sorry for the people who wants to do legit stuff with their Xbox but last time people were given those liberties they abused it and raped those that gave them these rights.
It's normal the balance goes the other way now."
They didn't give me any rights, I have rights regardless. They are being taken away saying that my rights are given to me.
This was the whole reason why the constitution was so ground breaking. It was formed by people who said ok, man was born with natural rights (or god given). That those rights do not come from a king, queen, president or someone someone with a lot of wealth. We all have them, and its only a balance on when your right tramples on someone elses life. Such as muder, rape, stealing.
Oh, and just so you know, copying software is NOT stealing, is is copyright infrigment, Copyright/trademark/etc is not a real form of a property, and is't existance has to be argued, just happens that its proffitable for it to exist, so more people argue for further restrictions on such things.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I agree as well. Microsoft doesn't give two shits about the BIOS. Microsoft's beef with the modders is that it screws up their revenue stream.
Their okay with losing 100 bucks per Xbox because they intend to make up the difference in all the content you'll buy. As soon as you buy 3 games, they've started making a profit. However, if you mod the thing and install linux on it, they're still out a 100 bucks and you have yourself a cheap linux box. Since Microsoft's internal motto is "Litigate, don't innovate, it's a lot cheaper".
In other posts I've written about this, but it comes down to the same thing. Until Microsoft can start producing an Xbox that they can make a profit from just selling the box, they've got a major uphill battle, because both Sony and Nintendo's apporach is just that. They make it a point of almost never losing money on the production of a console.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
One quick point -
I believe that Lik-Sang did sell pre-modded Xboxes (as they did sell premodded everything else (PS2, PSX, pimped out Gamecubes, you name it)) with DivX players, Mame with a full compliment of games, and basically an entire non-MS setup (not Linux either - just a browser to run things off the HDD written by OpenXbox or whoever) all preinstalled. I know everyone is defending the consumers rights to mod the hell out of everything they own and I agree with that completely, but I think it might be a little fuzzier if a business premods and sells. Honestly, I'm not sure.
For the record, I ordered a PS2 modchip from Lik-Sang about 4 or 5 weeks ago. They sent me an empty box. Now they have a hoard of money for which they haven't sent products (as the mini-interviews in the article state) and won't respond to any emails. I say fuck 'em if they keep all the money they stole from people before they went under.
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
It shouldn't be a special case.
Like any other product it should be clear and explicit about what you are agreeing to.
Consumer protection laws should apply to licenced products as well as physical products.
If Microsoft allowed an open bootloader of any kind on the Xbox, then their control, and hence their revenue stream, would disappear. The only way I can see that scenario working for them is if they charged a huge amount for the open bootloader - enough to make up for their lost revenue stream for the unit in which that bootloader would be used.
But if they charged that much for the bootloader, then the combined cost of the Xbox and bootloader would no longer be quite so competitive against an ordinary PC, so who would buy the boot loader? At that point, you've just got a very weird PC. What would be the purpose, except for the usual "Geek Mt. Everest" syndrome?
If someone made a mod chip that specifically excluded the ability to boot copied game disks, but allowed booting unsigned disks or out-of-region disks, it would be much harder for Microsoft to argue the illegality of it. I have no idea if such a thing is possible or not, but so long as the mod chips allow booting copied games, then the DMCA figures prominently.
Just don't buy an Xbox if you don't like Microsoft.
There. I feel better now.
Edith Keeler Must Die
And I'm sure Bill Gates is crying himself to sleep because of you.
Get over yourself. MS doesn't give a rat's festering rectum about people buying XBoxen to mod them. They care about people who buy them to play (and therefore buy) XBox games.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Remember that Sony sells the Linux kit for the PS2, and it's not exactly cheap. That does not make Sony any more reasonable in this regard as they have always been pretty agressive at trying to get mod chip manufacturers shut down.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
EULA's no longer require testing in court like they once did. DMCA gives them legal weight. Unless you believe that DMCA provisions can be ruled unconstitutional by appelate courts, we're stuck until the law is changed.
C//
Like McDonalds is not all over England and Europe. Climb down off your wooden horse and deal with reality. American, Canadian, South American, from Iceland and of course Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia...where ever you hail from it is a world economy now and getting more so everyday. A pigeon shits on the NYSE, and it is felt in Japan. When the EU makes a policy or financial decision, the rest of the world surfs the wake. What the corporations can't get passed by law they are ensuring gets secured by treaty, the concept of national borders does not exist in a financial model, and unless WE figure it out soon, it will be too late, and those national identities will be subsumed in multi national corporate citizenship. I am not looking forward to my children being a citizen of TimeWarnerAolVivendi-Inc.
BTW the real europeans are all dead, they were bronze age fellows that built really cool stone monuments. Your ancestors killed them off when they migrated into the area. Just like my fathers' anscestors killed off the other side of my family. I guess it was a good thing my great great (etc) grandma was a native hottie....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Hrmm, your missing my point.
Ok, I'm selling a hammer for $1.00. I make a piece of paper inside thats 20 pages long with rights I take away from you, sicne you own the hammer now, and give myself.
You must use my $1.00 per nail. Any other nail and you go to jail. And they must be nail type "A", else you goto jail, any other nail, you need to purchase the right that I took away in that contract you never signed, or understood, or even read.
If you figure out how to use this hammer any any other way than I intended, my nail type A unless more rights are bought, you will goto jail.
*
See, the "property" is now yours, I have no say as to what to do with it. Further more, there is no contract with out a signature. And such a contract would not be legal if there was as much money fighting against such things as there was for it.
I aggre, that people should pay for the software and such that they use. However, they way they are protecting it, is not right, and tramples all over our rights as humans. Constitution or no constitution.
ps.
Even non Americans are freed by the constitution.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Just because they have reason to not want me to do something, shouldn't mean they have legal recourse. I have reason to not want my company to give a promotion to someone who is more qualified than me, because it means less money for me. And I can sue, but that doesn't make it right.
Also, some of the modchips don't include MS's BIOS code. The one designed based on the work bunni did, simply sniffs the password of the bus. Last I heard, you can't copyright a password. (Well, I guess if it were really long and not numeric, but...)
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
When you say you can't argue the "hammer analogy " with the fact it its flawed. It is actually the copyright laws that are flawed.
Copyrights and other IP laws was used to give ideas and so forth a substance so to speek. However it lacks any sort of balance.
For example, corporations have benefits and costs. Some of the benefits include (but not limited too):
Owners are protected, and can lose only what they put in. But Tax twice, yes, I know stock options negate this to some extent.
See, what happens, is that the corporation is considered an individual, and actually has some rights so to speak that come with it. Such as ownership. And is considered an individual entity.
The same thing needs to be done with "IP". It needs to be treated as a physical object in good and bad ways.
Good way: You can make money off it and people can not copy it.
Bad way: it is now theirs, and they can do what ever they like with it. Also, the makers are subject laws that are used in all manufactured laws. If it doesn't work as advertised, breaks and takes things down with it, costs lives, etc.
Copyright exists the way it does today because it is being written by those who will profit from it directly in terms of money. Such as the RIAA and the MPAA.
And there is plenty of "IP" in a hammer. They are smart enough to know that selling hammers at a loss and expect to make money on overpriced nails wont work. Laws should not be supportive of this, and we shouldn't tolerate any public figure that supports those types of laws(or agendas).
And thank you for adding me to the friend list. I honor this and do likewise.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Would a HOW-TO on copying the Lik-Sang mod chips be a violation of the DMCA??
That may be funny, but I'm serious.
Since the argument is against Lik Sang because they made a profit, what if these chips THEMSELVES were pirated?
Surely Lik Sang would lose out (sorry!), but if THEY can't sell the things, I think they'd have a difficult time prosecuting someone who sells their design at not-for-profit. Since they are off the market, copying the chips themselves is no longer more effort than it's worth...
Anyone get one of these chips and study them? Can the firmware be dumped to an image and burnt with a common EEPROM burner?
Console mods don't cheat anyone out of possible income to cover costs.
No one in the USA has any right whatsoever to "possible income." Property rights? Yes! "Possible income" rights? No.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
...don't forget where Germany and Japan got their seed capital. We VC'd them, and they're in no military position to forget about it.