Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Someone must stop those gosh dang hobbyists. First they're modding dreamcasts, and next thing you know they're stealing cars and seducing virgins!
They've actually embraced the independent developer very nicely, by first offering their "Net Yaroze" for the Playstation, and now, a actual port of Linux for the Playstation 2..
Sony (and on the software side, many game software companies like id and Valve, with their mod-friendly games) seems to understand that the hobbyists/indie developers of today often are the professional game developers of tomorrow, unlike Microsoft and their efforts toward an Xbox (they've got their "incubator" program, but that is still only for actual game developers, not individuals).
It would be good to provide feedback to other companies to embrace such models like Sony has.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
Unfortunately the author failed to mention that one of the reasons Sony went after the author of the Aibo software was that he had copied some of Sony's code.
The author also fails to mention that Sony subsequently opened up the Aibo's API.
No, you must use your XBox illegally after the modification has taken place. If one was to destroy an XBox and the broken peaces as catlitter, for example, you've illegally modified Microsoft products and will be facing a jail sentence.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
here's the link to counter strike article
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.
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.
It is good to see this sort of thing in the main stream media although I would have liked to see more focus on how ill-concieved legislation like the DNCA, hastilly written with little or no understanding of the ramifications is coming back to bite these corporations in their collective ass. Oh well. It's a good start.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I have always found mods to games to be a good thing for consumers and also for companies making the games. The mods (assuming they are of good quality) give extra incentive to the players to continue playing the games long after they have finished the original game. The perfect example of this is Counterstrike for Half Life. I know I continued playing Half Life for about two extra years all because of Counterstrike. The plus for the software companies is the extra revenue. Valve Software has probably made a lot more money than they would have if Counterstrike did not exist.
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!
A customer purchases a product. By modifying said product, a customer has actually increased the value of a product. They have used it to do something additional. When this information is distributed to the public, it potential increases the value of the entire product base. Just how many people purchased an XBox only after they found out how to run Linux on it?
Hopefully more companies will wake up to the economic reality that they can employ a bunch of slashdotters for free!
If I buy an X box and stick a chip in it so I can run Linux, I'm technically violating the DMCA (MS would argue that the chip's primary purpose being to run pirated games vs. running Linux, despite the fact that all I may want to do is run Linux.)
If I buy 10,000 X boxes and super glue them together to make a giant tux sculpture, I do believe that would be legal.
As far as I'm concerned, one is no less speech than the other.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
This story is a good example of how complete mod can definitely benefit the original manufacturer.
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.
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.
jello.
aka aron.
This stuff can be slightly confusing, as there are huge differences, legally speaking, between making/using hardware to modify consoles, and making software mods (additional levels, art etc) for PC games.
Mod chips are not popular with console companies. At all. The huge majority of them (based on my personal knowledge) are used for either piracy (obviously illegal) or playing import games (legal, but annoying to console companies that like to operate region coding systems. And yes, regioning sucks.) People who buy mod chips for other reasons (are there any apart from running Linux and homebrew gaming?) are not contributing much to the normal revenue stream, and might even be competing with it (producing cheap or freeware games and utilities. This becomes more of an issue when you start adding HDs and broadband connections).
Game mods, on the other hand, are great for the developers and publishers, they get lots of free (or nearly free, producing an SDK and doing a bit of patching) content and press, and guess what, everyone who plays them needs a copy of the game. Part of the reason that game mods are so good for the developers is that they have a lot of control. Read the license agreement on the SDK, they own any content you distribute for their game. Produce something offensive (or outrageously profitable), and they can take it all away from you. Obviously this would be a world of bad publicity, but they can still do it.
What would be nice for consoles is to
A)Throw away the regioning
B)Seperate the protection of copyrighted disks from the ability to read CD-Rs and unsigned code, both of which are pretty much essential for home development.
C)Produce a really cheap/free dev kit, possibly with some restrictions (ie, game can only be distributed for free or through console makers publishers). I have no idea how much they make through selling dev kits
This would get the benefits of PC game style mods and allow them to reduce piracy by drawing a clear line between enthusiasts and pirates (yes, they're often the same people, but it seperates the behaviour), making piracy less generally accepted and easier to attack legally.
Of course, when do that, people want more freedom, more customisablity etc, and pretty soon you end up with a PC (or at least an Atari/Amiga style "home computer")...
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...
Well, here Lego Mindstorms story is not being clearly covered...
When Mindstorms came, Lego was only willing to deliver a little more complex toy for older kids (~12 years old). In their minds, this was just an extension of Technics, nothing else. But then it came the surprise. Some crazy hackers broke into the robot and realized that it had a relatively powerful chip inside. And some realized that this chip was in accordance to some MIT basic theories on Robotronics. And that made a boom of all kinds, even US Air Force had one guy porting Ada to Mindstorms.
Meanwhile sales were not looking so good. As far as stories go, Lego planned to make a small launch of 10000 units and forget the matter. At that time they saw what hackers were doing and started the get mad. Back then there were a few articles with disgruntled managers claiming that hackers were hurting Lego by violating its property rights. There were even some voices that hinted about Lego preparing a run to courts. However, this mood suddenly stopped. Why? Because Mindstorms sales hicked. And Lego came to create three robot versions and sell some 100000 units.
Frankly, as I could see over one shop nearby, it was not 12 year-old kids that helped Lego in this. It were hackers. The clerks told me that they tried hard to sell two units, but, not even the big daddy with golden rings and buckstuffed pockets was willing to buy such a toy for his kid. Absolutely no one was interested on it, except two weird guys. One was some middle-aged guy from some institute, the other was me who is also not a teenager. Interesting to note that my box was gaining dust on the shop for some 6 monthes before I bought it.
The robot is some marvel. You may think it is crazy to play such a thing, that an adult should have much more important things to do. Wrong. Try to run over the deep bottom of programming a $200 robot and you may realize that there are a few things that make you look as a teenager in front of his first Z80, typing its first BASIC program. There are a few things on robots, which are outside the scope of your usual programming skills. Before you try, programming Mindstorms may look simple and stupid. But, when you see the robot going nuts or breaking his leg, you realize that you still have something to learn.
Presently, Lego is still fighting with that brief lack of vision, however, its support over the hacker community has been slowly rising. It were all those big kiddies, some with little kids who barely understand why daddy/uncle also plays Lego, that made the Robot a success.
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.
I think this is a more interesting question than everyone else who has yet responded to the thread.
First of all, even a literal quotation with certain small twists in a serious work has been accepted as "satire" by U.S. courts. The question is, when the work infringes commercially with potential profit in the same target audience market then the work is no longer considered satire. But satire is some of the most protected speech in the U.S. (unless it is directed against judges or law enforcement, which gives the authors a much rougher time.)
Second of all, the fair use doctrine of the Berne convention and U.S. law allows the extensive literal reproduction of and derivation from news articles. Many nonprofit and commercial sites take advantage of this fact. You could claim that a changed conclusion results in a derivative work, even if you copied all the quotes and facts verbatim.
Third of all, every single reporter in the world LOVES it when his or her work shows up in thousands of email inboxes, even in edited or truncated form. The only real problems in this realm occured when freelance work with limited publication rights started ending up verbatim in LEXIS/NEXIS, which was a big messy lawsuit around 1995 or so. If anyone is losing anything in article redistribution, it's the publishers, not the reporters, and even the publishers in practice acknoledge that the free advertising from widely-disseminated quality work is worth a lot more than the possible market value loss.
Fourth of all, I think this is a remarkably good idea. Why don't you do it and ask the author what he thinks of it?
I have a feeling that there is more to the question than was meant to be in it. An interesting experiment awaits!