Taking Aim At The Mod Squads

Cutriss writes "CNN's usually dry and uninspired reporting was interrupted today by this interesting and rather well-informed piece by Eric Hellweg from the Technical Investor section. It compares and contrasts efforts from various companies in squashing/supporting the hobbyist community. It's rather well-timed, considering recent events."

Comments

Rather wrong headed, in spots

[unicorn]

With regards to Microsoft, he's comparing selling a legitimate product, that was created using tools that were opened by the developer. To selling a chip, that likely uses copyrighted code in the chip, that's primarily designed to allow pirating of games for the Xbox.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[Slashdotess]

I see what you're saying with that, but I'm going to have to disagree. The article is talking about weather it's good business for companies to let consumers mod their products. Microsoft clearly didn't think that was the case and thus the entire liksang thing. Of course, there isn't a clear cut line as far as this goes.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[stwrtpj]

With regards to Microsoft, he's comparing selling a legitimate product, that was created using tools that were opened by the developer. To selling a chip, that likely uses copyrighted code in the chip, that's primarily designed to allow pirating of games for the Xbox. [Emphasis mine]

Prove it.

Prove to me that X-Box modchips were created primarily to play pirated games. I don't think you can. Certainly, I am not so naive as to think that this would not be a purpose that one might put the modchip too. But then again, people used to use the VCR to rip off pre-recorded movies, and a judge has long since decided that the VCR's primary purpose was not to make illegal copies of movies. The mere fact that it could do it is not enough.

Most hobbyists do not look at modchips and say "hey, I could play lots of ripped games and not pay a cent with this". They look at them and say "hey, look at the amazing things I can make this box do with this modchip!"

A great deal of hackery in software and hobbyist-ing (?) in hardware is motivated by the coolness factor. It's cool to pick apart something and learn how it works. I know that's what motivates me. On the rare occassion that I run proprietary software on my Linux machine, if something goes wrong with it, my first reaction is not just simply to contact customer support, but to whip out strace and similar tools and try to track down the source of the problem myself. An argument could be made that I'm violating the DMCA in doing this, since this is a form of reverse-engineering. I don't care, because I know I'm not trying to gain knowledge for illicit purposes. I just want to know how the damn thing works for my own purposes.

So I would say that there is really no way to make a blanket statement about the purpose of modchips.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet the farm that if it were possible to survey people who use mod chips, 95% to 99% of them would have been used at some point for some sort of illegal activity (playing pirated games, playing emulators, playing pirated DivX movies.)

If you think otherwise, you're delusional and haven't encountered many people who have mod chips installed.

The only two legit reasons I could think of for using a mod chip on an Xbox would be for creating your own games or running Linux. The former you can do in the exact same way on a PC, and the latter is stupid, because Linux sucks. And the people who bitch about not being able to play third party non-Microsoft licensed games are retarded -- the best "non-licensed" game the OSS community has come up with is Tux Racer, the best game I could see coming out for the XBox by a third party would be Tetris or something similarly trivial.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[enneff]

You are correct. But:

It is irrelevant what the intended use for the chip is. If it contains any Microsoft code then it's not legally saleable. That's the bottom line.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[synerr]

Mod chips have legitamate uses too. But even if you use it for 'illegitimate' uses, does that do more harm than good for MS? If someone mods his Xbox to run linux, isn't he probably going to leave it dual boot to play games. One more Xbox sold, more games, more market penatration, more money for MS. And in the online market, penatration is everything. If you have a massive multiplayer game, the piracy can actually help. Legit users will buy the games at a slower rate, but the pirates will be on the system as soon as they can. For the first couple of months, pirates will give your world the critical mass it needs to attract legit users, and then when you have enough legit users, a company has a lot of options for locking out pirated versions.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Prove to me that X-Box modchips were created primarily to play pirated games."

M.A.M.E.? Let's face facts: There's yet to be any constructive reason to run MOD on an XBOX for anything other than MAME. It's either an under-utilized PC, or it's an over-priced MP3 player. But MAME, though, is a nice little fit for the XBOX.

It is, illegal (technically) to download ROMS and play them with MAME unless you have a license to do so.

Disclaimer: I am playing Devil's Advocate. Don't flame me over my response, I'm just answering the guy's question. It is very obvious that mod chips could and would be used for piracy. Instead, he should be asking 'In what ways could the mod chip be used legally, and why would people flock to them?'

He's going to lose the "how's it illegal?" qusetion, but when the modders have enough reason to say "here's a legit reason to do it", then the piracy argument is dissolved.

You all remember Jack Valenti and his 'VCRS will destroy the broadcast industry' FUD? The key reason that VCRs were deteremined to be legal was because there was enough legitimate reason to justify their existence. The MPAA was worried that people'd trade pirated movies back and forth, but the court said "as long as a significant chunk of them are using it to time-shift TV shows, then it is not a piracy device."

See my point? Ask how it's illegal and all kinds of not-so-relevant reasons (like my MAME one) will pop up and they'll be believed. Ask what can be done with the modded XBOX that doesn't involve piracy, and you've got a case.

Note to XBOX modders: Find something CONSTRUCTIVE to do with the XBOX. Turn it into a webserver. Turn it into Lightwave rendering node. Turn it into a development kit where garage developers can create games. Do something besides get MAME running on it! You're only hurting yourselves.

Re:Rather wrong headed, in spots

[Anonvmous Coward]

"There's nothing at all illegal in my dumping my various arcade boards, or having someone do this for me, and running those roms in MAME. Which I've already done for many of them."

Somebody against the XBOX modding would say: "Oh yes, as your one (1) example points out, every single person on earth who uses MAME would have the arcade board to dump the ROM From. They wouldn't conceive of just downloading the ROMS from the web."

I will state again: That's what they would say, so don't flame me for it.

A bit of bias, but overall good

[pla]

I think people need to keep in mind how much publicity their mods generate, and whether they benefit or detract from the original product FROM THE POINT OF VIEW of the manufacturer.

With the Aibo, clearly Sony screwed up big-time. Making the thing dance didn't harm them in any way, earned them *tons* of free, POSITIVE publicity (until they tried to squash it), and actually made their product in some way "better".

At the opposite end of the spectrum, Microsoft has put themselves in a very awkward position. By not making money on the console itself, anyone who buys it *only* to run Linux on costs them money. At the same time, having a vested interest in a particular OS (ie, Windows), seeing it used specifically to run what arguably counts as their biggest competition *really* galls them. OTOH, I see no valid reason why consumers should lack the right to do whatever they want with an XBox. While they can license the *media*, can they actually say the purchaser doesn't own the hardware itself? Tricky.

Hmm, okay, I guess I didn't have as much to say on this as I thought. Basically, I fully support modders, and just suggest that, if it will obviously piss off the company involved (ie, the XBox Linux effort), try to keep it quiet.

Re:Sony is a good example

[realmolo]

Though I think it was shitty of MS to come down on Lik-Sang (and modchips in general), the idea that you NEED a modchip to learn X-Box game development is wrong.

An X-Box is, fundamentally, the same as a Windows machine. If you can make games for a PC, you can make games for an X-Box. The tools are essentially the same.

So the modchip as a "learning tool" idea is out the window. I mean, c'mon, modchips are for playing pirated games. Especially on the X-Box, where there aren't even any imported games that need a chip to play.

Mods Completely In Line with World Use

[mugnyte]

Gutting devices and mod'ing them is a part of life and innovation. Once you own an appliance, you own the guts too. Trying to stop the flow of Information That Wants To Be Free is niave.

Are we going to end up with a set of categories for appliances? Can Mod / Cannot Mod? Will I have to pay more for a dryer I want to hack to cook clothes for an extra 60 minutes? For an Xbox that I want to re-chip to play any copy from any source?

Hot rod your car; cut the annoying ringer out of the extra phone in the study; rip a few choice capacitors out of the TV (they make great joy-buzzers), etc.

I relaly don't see how this could be stopped. Stopping the info flow is silly, but thats all they can do.

Re:Sony is a good example

[lobos]

Exactly. Although Half-Life is a great game and many people enjoy it, it's not my type. However, I ended up buying it. Why? Counter-Strike. Think of how many people that would not have purchased HL if it weren't for this and so many other great mods.

Let's mod Eric Hellweg's article

[HillClimber]

I wonder how Eric would like it if someone "modded" his article to change the conclusion and then posted it on their website?
I actually agree with his point that encouraging a customizing fan club can be a good thing. However, we have to allow IP creators to be able to control what people are allowed to do with their IP, and definitely whether others are allowed to pirate it.

If you don't like a game or gaming platform's mod policy, then vote with your dollars -- don't buy it!

Re:Let's mod Eric Hellweg's article

[medeii]

I wonder how Eric would like it if someone "modded" his article to change the conclusion and then posted it on their website?

He might not like it, but that doesn't mean he has the right to do anything about it. Unless, of course, fair use is suddenly not inclusive of commentary?

Of course, if the person neglected to properly attribute the article, then that would be copyright infringement. But that wasn't specified, so let's not beat that horse.

I actually agree with his point that encouraging a customizing fan club can be a good thing. However, we have to allow IP creators to be able to control what people are allowed to do with their IP, and definitely whether others are allowed to pirate it.

This isn't necessarily piracy. The mod chips may contain legitimately reverse-engineered code; they may contain pirated code; or they may not contain any similar code at all. Until there's a definitive answer to why Lik-Sang was taken down, don't presume that it was legal or illegal.

And no, we don't have to let IP creators control everything that happens to their work. I personally like quoting others' forum posts so that I can reply to them more accurately -- which is a very legal 'infringement' of copyright. Just because Microsoft doesn't like mod chips doesn't mean they have a legal right to shut down an operation, and until we know exactly what went on, speculating on the cause is a waste of time and bandwidth.

But the author

[unicorn]

counterpoints himself, saying that MS appears to support the mod market, by selling CounterStrike.

There's a world of difference between a legitimate commercial product that is produced using open toolsets. And a hacked illegitimate product.

Re:But the author

[aronc]

What's that CounterStrike thing supposed to mean anyway?

It shows MS's true colors. They will reap the benifits of other's allowed mods but they will tolerate no loss of control over [i]their[/i] stuff. Shortsighted and greedy, as the article says near the end.

Why?

[Geminatron]

I mean, honestly, once I purchase the system, isn't it mine to do with as I please? I know several people who have an X-Box, and have mod'ed the system, dropped in a bigger hdd, and then put their own games on it to increase the performance of the game. Big deal. They own the hardware, and I can't remember having to accept any EULA in order to game on the thing.

Microsoft has to realize, that if they want to prevent people from hacking their systems, or OS or whatever, they need to ensure that it is more secure, instead of doing something as stupid as shutting down a site. I could just go on IRC and find a new place to get some chips, if I wanted. Oh, and those chips, once the hardware is flashed, you can take them out and give them to the next person anyways.

And who's corporate opinion is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

So sayeth CNN/Money, a joint venture of two companies within the AOL-Time-Warner family.

*shrug*

I agree with what he says, but lets read between the lines as to why he's _allowed_ to say such nasty things about Sony and MS, two of ATW's most hated rivals.

Re:Sony is a good example

[topham]

You can't run any unsigned code on the xbox without using a mod chip. period.

Even linux.

So, it is quite possible to argue that a mod chip exists to allow linux to be used. On the other hand, Microsoft (etc) don't sue the consumer with the mod chip, they sue the resellers.

Customer vs. Consumer

[PineHall]

Unfortunately it seems that many companies have abandoned the maxim that the customer is always right. Ultimately, on this issue, these firms will find out that they've been dead wrong.

Those that limit the customer rights are those that call the customer a consumer. They think of the customer as consuming their product, not purchasing it, but that is not the way the customer views it. I see the entertainment industry trying to limit "consumption" to individual times so they can make more money. Unfortunately they will discover that their customer thinks differently and they will have to scramble to save their business.

Yes, I did read it, now try and follow along...

[unicorn]

In paragraph 5, he talks about MS getting the Xbox mod chip pulled off the market. No mention of Linux at all.

In paragraphs 9-10 he talks about Valve selling Counter-Strike, which was created after the Halflife engine was released source (aka an open toolset).

In the second half of paragraph 10, he claims that MS allowing Counter-Strike on the Xbox, is some sort of validation by MS of the Mod community.

MS selling Counter-strike on the XBox, is selling a product. Nothing more. Not deeper political meaning at all. Just merchants selling a packaged good.

Look back to I-Opener

[jackb_guppy]

The death nail of Netpliance. Built a machine for $400 and sold for $100... Service extra. The same could be said for Replay and TiVo both boxs are being sold undervalue but it is the monthly checks that keep them working.

"Usually dry reporting"

[Evil Adrian]

"Usually dry reporting" -- a.k.a. objective. CNN is a news organization, and as such they are obligated to present the facts in an objective manner.

This article, however, is known as an "editorial."

Re:Sony is a good example

[aronc]

If Linux can be made to run reliably enough on the XBox, the XBox suddenly becomes a great source of decent computing power for a really cheap price. The result: lots of people buy XBoxen but they don't buy games. Microsoft gets screwed big time.

So you would rather support Microsoft's flawed business plan (selling standard/close to standard PC hardware at a loss) than actually uphold 200 years of first sale doctrine?

I bought the box at the price they wanted to sell it. What I do with/to it from there is my business. And no, the mods chips did [i]not[/i] contain any copyrighted code. You have to program them yourself. It is the end users problem to do so without breaking copyright. The mod chippers were 100% in the right.

Re:Microsoft HAS to take a hard line...

[d_redguy]

Thanks to that price drop ($300 -> $200) it costs Microsoft at LEAST $150 per xbox. They still do not have the volume being made to counter that, primarily because they don't sell fast enough to justify increased production.

The volume is key here. What hurts MS worse...buying an Xbox for $200 (net cost to MS = $150) or not buying an Xbox at all (net cost to MS =? $250)??

Modders or Script Kiddies: You decide

[Anonymous Coward]

The true modders are the ones that create the mods. What if to rip an audio CD or DVD you just had information on the media's (and in the case of DVD the encryption algorithm) specs, and your standard Windows (or your platform of choice) API list and YOU had to write your own ripper from scratch? Code your own modchip? Write your own MP3 encoder? "Here's the concept, here is how the data is structured, now write the application."

Of course, it doesn't work like that... Once someone else has done the work, you can simply download some precompiled code and run it. Isn't that what script kiddies do?

I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just trying to throw out a different perspective. If everyone who modded or hacked just did a writeup about their findings and no one released any code (compiled or otherwise), would companies like Microsoft have as much of an issue? From past hacks like the Netpliance I-Opener (original BIOS code that allowed booting of any OS released onto the Internet), the CueCat (decoding utilities for almost every OS) and the PlayStation (Buy a modchip) it seems the mods only become a problem once they're trivial to implement by someone who otherwise would NOT have modded the device themselves.

Would the RIAA be up in arms if no one shared their MP3s that they made from CDs they weren't legally allowed to be sharing? If EVERYONE kept their MP3s to themselves, the "mod" of being able to rip and compress your music would be NO threat to the music industry.

Being able to change something you have purchased is a great power. In the wrong hands, it can and WILL be misused.

This is probably an unpopular message here on Slashdot, so I'm going to check that Anon box down there...

Point contested

[frovingslosh]

If you had the skill to build your own chip that does everything the exisiting one does, in a clean room way, you could just as easily leave the copy protection code intact, and still make it capable of running Linux I bet. And you'd have a much better legal leg to stand on, in the process.

I have to differ with this conclusion. If one were to completely "clear room" a mod chip, building an entirely new BIOS from scratch, you certainly could not "leave the copy protection code intact", you couldn't have it at all. And the DCMA would make it illegal to understand the copy protection mechanism well enough to duplicate it, as you had to in some way reverse engineer it to duplicate it!

Re:Let me clear up 'ownership' for ./'ers

[lugonn]

While they can license the *media*, can they actually say the purchaser doesn't own the hardware itself?

You can do whatever you want with the X-Box hardware, it is your Hardware. You bought it, it is now yours. You can even resell it without getting sued for piracy and other EULA crap. You can't copyright hardware cuase it can't be copied, only manufactured, that's why you don't need licsense agreements for harware. There is no "good-faith" agreement with hardware (i.e. a EULA is a "good-faith" contract to a court of law, between you and the software manufacturer).

What you CAN'T do is run MS X-Box games and other MS Software on a Mod'd X-Box, that violates the terms of use of MS software. Which is why they don't want you to Mod-Chip-It, becuase then you are not legally able to run X-Box games on that console.

It has nothing to do with Linux. If you could get Linux to run on an X-Box without mod'ing the bios in some fashion...MS wouldn't care, becuase you could still legally run games on it. They are trying to make they're draconian licsensing more legalease by adopting this stance, in case they have to go to court.

The above is not legal advice. That can only come from a qualified attorney who is familiar with all the facts and circumstances of a particular, specific case and the relevant law.

Re:Sony is a good example

[twistedemotions]

Chip a Playstation, Go to Jail Sony vs Modchips Sony Uses DMCA To Shut Down Aibo Hack Site Sony Crushes UK PS2 Mod Chip Developers Connectix VGS PlayStation Reverse Engineering Stands Up In Court Bleem! Playstation Emulator Will Ship Judge to freeze Connectix Virtual Game System (VGS) So.... Sony is the good guy to independent developers and engineers now?

Can't believe he didn't mention Tivo...

[no_such_user]

Tivo should have been mentioned in this article. It's quite a give and take situation between Tivo, Inc. and the tivo-hacker community. On one hand, they didn't object to an ethernet card being un-officially added to the unit so that users could bypass the daily dialup. In fact, they started officially supporting the hack in the newer (3.0) versions of the software.

Yet at the same time, they strictly prohibit mpeg streams being extracted off the hard drive. Popular opinion has it that one or more established Tivo hackers have the ability to cleanly extract data, but Tivo threatened that they'd stop being hacker-friendly if the code was ever released.

There are a couple of small groups out there currently trying to extract data from the Tivo, but it's not an easy, 100% reliable procedure.