Slashdot Mirror


Man Jailed for Selling Modchips

JoeCotellese writes "The Register is reporting that the man accused of selling Mod chips for the X-Box was sentenced to five months imprisonment and a $28,500 fine." Yet another sad abuse of the DMCA.

445 comments

  1. Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by The+Real+Chrisjc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an outrage! I mean, I have a chipped XBox here in the UK, and I use it to run XBox media player, and play a few (legitimate) games I have. At some point in the future, I will be running linux on it as well, as I can sit in bed and browse the web. Not as bad as it sounds :) I think DCMA is disgusting, it gives corporations the rights that they don't need!

    1. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Photon01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That isnt the issue,

      he may not be infringing on copyrights, but (correct me if im wrong, im no expert on DCMA) the issue is that the mod chips circumvent copy protection on the x-box, which is illegal.

    2. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by rf0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you are saying is that you bought a chip for a of hardware you paid for and own so you could use it how you wanted? Next you will be telling me that you have a video recorder and record whatever you want off TV. Or god forbid prehaps even a computer that you can do whatever you want on...

      Yes it is a stupid law and deserves to crash and burn

      Rus

    3. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Marimus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, you are probably wrong. The modchip you have installed has a copyrighted bios image on it. Sure, its been modified by the xboxhackers out there, but it still uses code from the xbox development kit, which is copyright microsoft.

      So mabey you don't copy games, but your chip still infringes copyright.

      The exception to this is the new cromwell bios, which is for running linux, and has been developed from scratch, not using the XDK, but sorry, that bios won't run your media player, or legit games.

      --
      Umm, can I submit a response later?
    4. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by icemind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not true. The issue is the BIOS on these chips which is a hacked version of the MS one, that's what's illegal about it. You can legally hack and reverse engineer the XBox as much as you like unless I'm mistaken. The chip he was selling, Enigmah, came with the hacked BIOS preinstalled and was therefore illegal. Had he been selling one of these blank mod chips (which you then add a BIOS to yourself) I doubt they'd have had such a strong legal case against him.

    5. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      It probably has more to do with it being marketed as circumvention devices. The chips have enough other legitimate uses (e.g. running non-MS-licensed software, such as that OS with the penguins) that it would be difficult to convincingly argue that circumvention is their actual purpose. But if they're sold as "This chip lets you run pirate warez" then one orf 1201(B)'s rules gets triggered.

      And it probably doesn't help that, in addition to the DMCA entanglements, traditional copyright (in the pre-1990s-nonsense usage) is also being infringed. When you sell chips that contain copies Microsoft code; you're just painting a big target sign on your forehead.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by jwilcox154 · · Score: 1

      Had he been selling one of these blank mod chips (which you then add a BIOS to yourself)

      Why would you want to add a bios to yourself? ;)

      I doubt they'd have had such a strong legal case against him.

      It doesn't matter, even if they have a weak case or even no case against him, they can keep suing until he gets extremely buried in legal fees that he has to declare bankruptcy.

    7. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      Visit this site for a fully legal modchip. It's got the Cromwell BIOS flashed when you purchase it.

      http://www.ozxchip.com/

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    8. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends, citizens haters of overcommercialization, it has come to my attention that this beloved country of ours is gradually turning into a despotic form of government, even going to war without a vote from a system of government created as a "check and balance" of the type of monarchy we see pervading within and under. Please consider assassinating anyone you consider not middle of the road or off-road, namely right-wing and left-wing. You will be glad you did.

    9. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by ryanr · · Score: 1

      So, he was selling them a chip with an XBox BIOS on it, which is only useful in an XBox. So the consumer has a license to use the XBox BIOS on his (one) XBox. Had he sold a blank chip, and the consumer put the modified BIOS on the chip himself, he would have been fine? (Though the consumer is probably violating a "no modifications" license clause at that point.)

      It's not quite the same as my buying a burned copy of Windows to use on a second PC with no OS license. I mean, I see the technical violation of the law... he was making unauthorized copies of software.. but he was giving them to people who had a right to have them (morally, if not legally.)

    10. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is moral gray area. What the person was doing was distributing a derivative work when he did not have rights to the original, but claiming it was okay because he only distributed it to people who already had the original work. It would open a box of potential issues if this sort of thing were permitted.

      Take for example a work of fiction. Authors generally have a copyright on the fictional characters in their book. But say someone wrote a book using the same fictional characters and this new book could be created by rearranging paragraphs in the original work, adding a few extra chapters, and expunging a few more. If the book is only sold (note the for-profit nature of the enterprise) to owners of the "original work", arguing that they could have reassembled your story themselves, has a copyright violation occurred?

      It's an exaggeration of the xbox modchip issue, but if you start allowing people to sell derivative works to owners of the original material, it isn't an unlikely scenario. You can always sell instructions on how to construct the second book from the first... just as it is legal to sell the blank modchips and instructions for ripping the original bios.

      I'm not overly fond of Microsoft and I don't like the DMCA, but I think the decision was correct.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    11. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      As a operating room scene is playing on MST3K..

      Tom Servo: "Well, I might as well install a SCSI port while I'm in here."

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    12. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by ryanr · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion (though the law does not often agree) that if you buy something, you can do with it what you like. In the case of IP, that's anything you want with your copy, short of giving it to someone else while also retaining a copy for yourself, if they don't own a copy. So, if your kids trashed your Windows CD by scratching it up, I have no problem with burning you a copy. The only gray area (by my thinking) is how to verify that the recipient owns their own copy before you hand over a copy of yours or a mod.

      Imagine an e-book. If I make electronic notes in the margins of my copy, I ought to be able to give it to you, if you own a copy of the original. The only reason that one should take offense if it makes it onto Kazaa is because there's obviously very little opportunity to verify ownership for all the people downloading.

      In the case of an XBox mod, it seems reasonable to be lax about verifying ownership at the moment, because there's no other practical use for the BIOS. Once XBox clones come out, then that would change.

      (If it makes a difference to anyone, I am an author. However, like most any modern paid author, you can't take my opinion as permission to do x, y, or z with a book I wrote... you'd have to talk to my publisher for that because they own the rights to it.)

    13. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've sidestepped the argument you're replying to. Your examples are not-for-profit.

      You may not have a problem with someone giving away crib notes to your work, but how about if I sell my crib notes at school? By selling them only to people registered in my course, I ensure that everyone owns a copy of the original (new or used). A lot of publishers and authors would have a problem with this, because I would be profitting from your work. This is a good portion of the post that you're replying to, which you've sidestepped.

      The guy with the scratched disc still has a legal license to run windows. By M$'s own views, you don't actually buy the disc, you buy the license. The license grants you the right to have a copy and to use it. It's sort of a grey area about whether it's allowable for you to give him a copy, but it would be permissible in some countries for him to borrow the disc and make a copy himself (as he has a license to the software).

    14. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm..... You can use the Comwell BIOS to run linux and suck, then when you want to play xbox gaes you just turn off your modchip. The MS BIOS will boot and there you go.

      However, is there a completely legal way to play Hard drive backups? Can't do it with the MS BIOS, and all other hacked MS BIOS'es are pretty much illegal.

    15. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even going to war without a vote from a system of government created as a "check and balance"

      Congress approved the use of force in Iraq.

      Granted it was months ago, but they DID do it.

      Slimy politician bastards.

    16. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Take for example a work of fiction. Authors generally have a copyright on the fictional characters in their book. But say someone wrote a book using the same fictional characters and this new book could be created by rearranging paragraphs in the original work, adding a few extra chapters, and expunging a few more. If the book is only sold (note the for-profit nature of the enterprise) to owners of the "original work", arguing that they could have reassembled your story themselves, has a copyright violation occurred?

      I'd say it's more like if you took a book series like the Star Wars novels, and wrote a fanfiction story where someone ended up differently and sold a disc that happened to have the copy of the book on it, but it was sorta useless because the new book made so many references to the original work (sure, without citation, but still) that you'd have to own a copy to understand the "new" book.

      Okay, I'm rambling.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    17. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, simple fact of the matter is, congress never declared WAR. We (the U.S) are not at WAR right now. Bush was given war powers, meaning he could send troops out. But we are not at war.

    18. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by philtulju · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it seems like much of the "legal technicalities" in these sort of grey market areas are simply speculation by people without much legal perspective. After all, you often hear that it is considered legitamite to play ROMS for which you have an original cartridge, disk, or PCB, but has this ever been tested legally? Is there a difference if you dumped it yourself? What if your emulator's rom is a slightly different FW revision from the one you own, but the functionality is the same? So, imagine this thought experiment. 1) Alice buys an XBOX, which always has a preexisting BIOS. 2) by desodering or whatever, she reads out the code on the eeprom or flash using a programmer board. 3) she applies something like an .IPS, which patches the code she has downloaded from the BIOS. 4) uploads the modified code to the XBOX, and it is "chipped" I think most people would agree that there is no copyright violation here, there was no warezing, etc of bios code, etc. at what point does it change? A) suppose she buys a commercial blank modchip. this is just a piece of hardware, no copyright issues here, prolly. B) suppose the modchip comes with a patch file described above. these is only modifications to the original FW, nothing MS. C) suppose it comes fully programmed. by emulator logic, she already has an original copy of the firmware, and only one is being used at a time. D) suppose she buys a fully chipped XBOX, and has not done any modifications herself. It seems like maybe the distinction is academic enough that anyone may be prosecuted if they make themselves too prominent. Being careful and discreet, I suppose, is the right thing to do.

    19. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      A pity if he was using the modified MS BIOS version of the chip.

      The XBox Linux project uses a different BIOS written from scratch, based on a hardware analysis of the XBox.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    20. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Marimus · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this is not the bios that was being used by the poster I replied to. He said he uses his modchip to run the Xbox Media Player (XBMP). This program is compiled using Microsoft Visual Studio 6, with the XDK. There is currently no other way to compile it for xbox. i.e OpenXDK will NOT compile it. Also, from xbox-linux.sourceforge.net FAQ section

      "Xbox Linux Project's Cromwell clean BIOS, which is only able to install and boot Linux, but does not contain any Microsoft code"

      Clearly, its copyright infringement, because he can run XBMP.

      So sure, point taken that there is a free alternative, but when it is clearly not being used, its hardly a get out of jail free card is it?

      --
      Umm, can I submit a response later?
    21. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by hhknighter · · Score: 1

      that's understandable. Although I believe there should be restrictions in terms of what you can do with it. Simply I don't believe you can say I bought this system and I can make copies of its software because I own the system.

      However, the case here is he was selling parts of a system that he does not legally owned, namely, the BIOS. You can't just take someone else's product, modify parts of it, and then sell it as your product; with it being the modified part you are cloning.

    22. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Zerocool3001 · · Score: 1

      According to the DMCA the installation of a modifying device onto a patented technology (of which the XBoX is heavily) is a violation of the intellectual property contained within the XBox. The BIOS on the chip is not the only illegal thing. Its very installation is illegal. Once you buy something, contrary to popular belief, you do not own it.

      --
      Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
    23. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Guess he should have sold them as "funny" X-Box chips. You know, satire is protected right?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by Groote+Ka · · Score: 1
      the issue is that the mod chips circumvent copy protection on the x-box, which is illegal.

      In US of A, that is. Just one country at the other side of the pond (viewed from European and/or Asian point of view) that does a lot of things a little different than the rest of the world.

      Unfortunately, Europe seems more and more likely to follow.

    25. Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? by WNight · · Score: 1

      This is the root of the problem. Everyone's so paranoid that someone is going to profit from something related to *their* property. If you ever manage to make a living by selling crib notes to a book I wrote, using "fair use" quotes, etc, go for it. Ditto if you sell additional levels for a game I wrote.

  2. "abuse of the DMCA" by chrisseaton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How an abuse? Seems to me that here the DCMA has been applied in the normal way.

    The DCMA may be a pain in the arse, but the problem is things like this are not abuses of it - they are legitamate uses.

    The DCMA is gay, but this is not an abuse of it.

    1. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gay? That's an insult? Someone want to mod this fuckwit down? we're not all 16 year old bedroom boys here.

    2. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by syle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I was completely with you until you called it "gay." I know you don't mean it in an offensive way, but every time you make the unspoken assertation that gay = stupid, you are being offensive. Moreover, you sound completely ignorant to anyone over the age of 23 or so (who wasn't exposed to the slang in high school).

      --

      /syle

    3. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Troll
      You know what, don't make sweeping generalizations that aren't true. Everyone over the age of 23 finds the use of 'gay' to mean any variant of bad, poor, or lacking? I don't think so. There are many people in this world that find homosexuality as offensive and disgusting as child molestation. They don't find people who use the word 'gay' in the manner previously noted ignorant. In fact, they probably agree. In the safe coddly world that you are trying to create where homosexuals aren't ever offended or made to feel like they are doing anything wrong, you are making people who hate homosexuality feel wrong. If you want to celebrate diversity so much, why don't you tell the next person who calls you a faggot that their opinion is not stupid (or gay, ha ha) and they have the right to it.

      Let's hear it for being offensive! I'm offended whenever I see a gay pride parade or two guys holding hands. Do I complain and tell people that while I know they don't mean to offend me, they are? No, I don't. We live in a society where there are quite a few freedoms. You're not the morality police so why don't you just pipe down?
      Honestly, you're being gay.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    4. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DMCA has sexual orientation?

    5. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by syle · · Score: 1
      I'm wasting my time responding to an AC troll, I know, but here is why.

      The word "gay" isn't now used to mean something offensive. When you say someone is "gay," it can either mean 'happy' or 'homosexual.' If those words have an unstated equality, so be it. It's not offensive. Having 'gay' and 'stupid' mean the same thing is offensive, for obvious reasons.

      So, even if your statement that homosexual people gave it a new meaning, which I do not necessarily agree with, is true, it's irrelevant because their new meaning was not offensive.

      --

      /syle

    6. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, lets celebrate diversity by joining the Klu Klux Klan. Liberals should learn to tolerate a good nigger lynching. After all, it promotes diversity.

    7. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      Dictionary.com has the following to say about the word gay:
      1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
      2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
      3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
      4. Given to social pleasures.
      5. Dissolute; licentious.

      You'll note that only one of those meanings has anything to do with homosexuality...and even that is only through recent usage, it is not the original meaning of the word. If GenY (or whatever the new gen is) want to re-purpose a word, that's up to them ;-)

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    8. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      So, by your logic, calling someone a "faggot" doesn't really mean you're connotating homosexuality to be a negative thing, since the word originally something along the lines of "a bundle of sticks?" Pretending that "gay" in today's time, especially when used in a derrogatory manner, is harmless and won't be associated with homosexuality is fooling yourself. And claiming that "no one notices" is even more foolish, since you can tell just by looking at this post that you've offended a number of people simply from the backlash this post has already received. You may not see the problem, but that doesn't mean other people won't take offense just the same. It's like a redneck not understanding why people get offended when they use the N word.

    9. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Good post. It was definitely not gay.

    10. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm offended by blind prejudice, and boy, are you offending me right now!

    11. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      I generally agree that the use of the word gay in the context used by the original poster was questionable, but....
      What if the original poster was equating happy to stupid rather than equating homosexual to stupid.
      Lord knows, I know a lot of happy people that are really stupid!

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    12. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. And the DMCA is a sausage-sucking, anus-rending, showtune-singing faggot. Hopefully it'll die of AIDS just like all those other pansy-ass fairies.

    13. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by syle · · Score: 1
      If that's what he meant, then I take it all back!

      Somehow, I don't think so though :)

      --

      /syle

    14. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, im nearly 26, and have said gay in the gay = stupid context ever since I can remember, and so do my friends. My lesbian friend jabs me when I say it, but she knows I'm not trying to offend her.

    15. Re:"abuse of the DMCA" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like the kind of person who would go up to someone and ask them if you could bum a fag.

  3. erm... by REBloomfield · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but where is the *legitimate* use of this? In most other cases, there can be claimed that it wasn't designed to circumvent Copy Protection (deCSS for example), but this blatantly was. So nope, no sympathy.

    1. Re:erm... by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you break a law you should expect to pay the price, even if you disagree with the law. Not agreeing with the DMCA doesn't make what he did legal. The fact is, he broke the law and was found guilty.

    2. Re:erm... by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Informative

      The legitimate use is that if I buy something, I do as I please with it. If I want to smash it with a big hammer, or unsolder all components and make a radio with it, it's my money.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    3. Re:erm... by REBloomfield · · Score: 1

      yeah, and if you break copyright laws, you get punished if you're caught. But by enabling others to break laws, makes you even more guilty....

    4. Re:erm... by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So why isn't the Xerox management in jail?

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    5. Re:erm... by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      So doing what the law says to is intrinsically right eh?

      That's what I keep telling people, like in Schindlers list, Speilburg seemed to treat Schindler like a hero where he uses bribery to circumvent the laws that his government had put down.

      And when those impudent wretches ousted Slobodan Milosovic, they were clearly in breach of Yucoslav law.

      And what about the perpotrators of the French and the Russian Revolutions? Didn't they read that bit about not executing their rightful rulers?

      And that goes to all the Mandelas, the Guvaras and the Gandhis out there, DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD!

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    6. Re:erm... by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Simple. Custom homebrew programs. Or Linux.

      Take a good look at the homebrew segment for the Dreamcast; they've done some simply amazing codeworks, including ports of Doom and Wolf3D.

    7. Re:erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, bullshit. Show me all the gun manufacturers being arrested and imprisoned for making devices that make murdering people easier.

    8. Re:erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad analogy. By your reasoning, obeying the law is a prima facie duty. So Schindler broke the law because of his greater moral duty to help those people out. I don't I have a greater duty to sell mod chips than I do to obey the law.

    9. Re:erm... by njdj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Schindler broke the law because of his greater moral duty

      Schindler had no moral duty to take the risks he took. He did what he did because he was a good man, not because he was "doing his duty".

      The violation of law that is the subject of this thread is also in a good cause, if a lesser one. The other point is that the draconian penalty is disproportionate to the offense. A few years ago, a man was sentenced to 6 months in prison (and no fine) for attempting to murder a neighbor of mine (in Maryland). He shot him in the chest with a nail gun. The victim survived, just. Of course the important difference is that the would-be murderer only harmed an ordinary citizen, whereas the mod-chip man annoyed a powerful corporation.

  4. Cripes! by Frogking · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's getting to the point where selling drugs is less of a risk! Not that I would, but I suppose one could always market LSD as a modchip for your brain...

    1. Re:Cripes! by garcia · · Score: 0, Redundant

      sadly soon that will apply under the DMCA too because as we will all be born and be forever owned by Billy.

      And no, I am really not kidding.

    2. Re:Cripes! by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

      but I suppose one could always market LSD as a modchip for your brain

      You could if you dont mind life in prision if you get caught. Yes, The DMCA is just about as ridiculous as current drug laws.

    3. Re:Cripes! by Cinematique · · Score: 1

      Just remember this...

      it's OK to use propaganda aimed at altering one's perception of reality....

      but smoking a joint is strictly prohibited.

      Nevermind the similarities.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm no pothead... but "annoying" doesn't even begin to describe the incongruities in American law.

  5. Oh, it's the guy from ISOnews.com by n3rd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps instead of buying protection in prison with the traditional box of cigarettes he can just give inmates warez'ed copies of Windows Server 2003 instead.

  6. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next would be catching those guys selling and mounting unauthorised tailpipes on our cars...

    Getting scary here.

  7. Abuse of the DMCA? by Rayonic · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I agree that it is a bad law, and a bad ruling, but I don't think think this qualifies as 'abuse of the law.' This is exactly the kind of thing those bribed lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it.

    Using the DMCA to lock out third party printer cartridges -- that's closer to abusing the law than this case.

    1. Re:Abuse of the DMCA? by drunk_as_in_beer · · Score: 1

      I agree that it is a bad law, and a bad ruling, but I don't think think this qualifies as 'abuse of the law.' This is exactly the kind of thing those bribed lawmakers had in mind when they wrote it.

      Any use of DMCA to address circumventing copy protection is abuse. Just like any use of smoking crack-rock is abuse. Then, again, maybe there are some legitimate uses of smoking crack-rock?

      --
      --Drunk as in Beer
  8. hardware not license by BobRooney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you buy an Xbox you buy hardware. Circuit boards, microchips, a hard drive, a GPU, a CPU, RAM. You are not buying the same sort of thing when you buy software, where you are technically buying a license, not a disk with software on it.

    You should be able to modify any equipment you own without fear of prosecution because the effect of that modification could possibly, in certain specific circumstances, violate copyright laws.

    It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.

    1. Re:hardware not license by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The console market is blurring the lines between property and licensing. Welcome to serfdom. You are now working for the Baron, living on the Baron's land.

      Have a nice life!

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:hardware not license by tommten · · Score: 0

      In microsoft russia, chairman gates owns you and your hardware..

      --
      - I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
    3. Re:hardware not license by phrantic · · Score: 1

      I was also reminded of the car analogy, but as far as i know the car industry without actually encouraging this kind of thing does not chase after people who chip their cars. It voids your warranty on the car sure, but it is your car so whatever you do is fine.

      --
      --My sig is bigger than your sig--
    4. Re:hardware not license by goldcd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with most mod-chips is that they usually contain MS's copyrighted code - and therefore violate copyright law pretty much wherever they're sold. Only way around this currently is to sell them blank with the capability for the end user to load on whatever code we wants using his computer (e.g. Xecuter Pro) or sell them with an Open source Bios installed (e.g. Cromwell). The problem with the later is that it's currently pretty fiddly to swap it for the one you most probably want on your mod chip.

    5. Re:hardware not license by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *sigh*

      Where are the days of, say, the Commodore 64? That thing came with the freakin' schematics in the back of the manual, practically begging you to take a soldering iron to it and modify it in interesting ways.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:hardware not license by st0rmcold · · Score: 2, Informative


      The DMCA is so blunt, it could still be used in that case, because the modchip seller could be charged as the "hyperlink" assisting in the copyright infrigement.

      Same way the wake student at princeton is getting charged for providing the service that allows people to pirate, even if there are good things involved, same with modchips, the fact is they "can" be used to pirate and the DMCA protects that.

      This shows how bad the law is and that it should be fought.

      --
      Posting useless rant since 2003.
    7. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the car analogy, this guy was not modding "his" rod, but selling parts which were known to be illegal. It's kind of like selling a kid all the ingredients to extasy and asking "You're not making extasy with this, are you?" when you know full well what he's doing.

      Right or wrong, the x-box mod chips are controlled products. This is no different than pirating satellite in the laws eyes.

    8. Re:hardware not license by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1
      Exactly right. Manufacturers all sell cars that are capable of driving faster (much faster usually) than 100KM/Hour (65MPH). Nearly every country (Germanys fine autobahns excepted) have a speed limit of ~100KM/hour. This is analogous to saying these companies are aiding and abetting speeders. They should be held responsible for all violations of the speed limit because they made a machine capable of violating this limit.

      Just because a mod could be used to violate copyright does not mean it will. You can be imprisoned for intent (intent to cause harm, intent to kill) but can you now also be imprisoned for intent to copy movies/games/media?

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    9. Re:hardware not license by MhzJnky · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      First off, you are buying software. The Xbox has a Windows 2k(ish) kernal in it. Not to mention the BIOS and such. The companies have a right to protect that.

      Second, Car makers do limit what you can do with your car. If I add proformace parts to my new Ford I void the warentee. So they are saying, "if you due this, your on your own".

      What the consol manufacurers are saying, is "I don't want you to do this, cause it could cost me money". Ford dosn't lose anything if I add a turbo to my Focus, but Microsoft losses if you by a Xbox and never by any games, cause your to busy playing with linux.

      What Microsoft sold you (at a loss) was a video game player, thats it. Any you agreed, by purchacing it, to only use it as a Video Game player.

      Manufacturers have the right to dicated how there products get used if they want to. And you have the right no to buy them. It's not like your harmed if you can't play Halo!

      Businesses have to protect themselfs, if they don't then the economy dosn't work.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    10. Re:hardware not license by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1
      "It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car because "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts."

      i used to work with a guy who sold modified chips for mustangs and corvettes.

      we put the cars up on a dyno, hooked up a logic analyzer and some telemetry on the fuel injection system to figure out how the factory chip worked, and made a modified version which produced 25% more horsepower.

      great business until he was arrested and his business confiscated for selling equipment which circumvented EPA laws.

      car owners didn't like it, but environmentalists thought it was a prudent application of the law.

      it all depends on your point of view.

    11. Re:hardware not license by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      when you buy software, where you are technically buying a license, not a disk with software on it.

      Maybe that's your situation. But when I buy a box with a disc in it, I am buying a box with a disc in it. I have neither signed nor agreed to any "license". I will therefore not be bound by anything above and beyond actual copyright law in regards to that purchase.

      Now a large company that buys a small set of source media with software on it may obtain a license to copy that software a certain number of times (typically known as "seats"). But that is a different situation. They usually have signed a legally binding contract.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:hardware not license by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      But what about the car companies selling cars with top speeds of over 150. Is there a single place in America where the cops will let u go that fast. I dont remember the new laws in the states where there use to be no speed limits, but from what I heard, when you go over 70 they would give you a ticket for poluting the environment or something like that. So now the car companies are asking "You're not speeding in these cars, are you?" And "survey sez" when the speed limit is 55 most people answer that they are going 65. By your logic it may seem correct to sue car companies for making cars that can go that fast.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    13. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCKING BULLSHIT.

      Get out of here, asshat - you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

    14. Re:hardware not license by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is crap. This reminds me of the Netpliance iOpener debacle. They sold something that could be easily hacked and made to do something that it wasn't necessarily designed to do(Run regular PC operating systems like Linux and Windows). They realized they screwed up. They also charged way under what they should have for the hardware. Oh sure, they tried to prevent users from modding them, they tried to bill you for the whole thing if you used a charge card and did not login, they tried almost every sneaky thing to try to make it work. In the end, the choice of hardware and the price they chose to charge was their undoing. Now they are out of business. Don't piss of the ones who would have been willing to pay the higher price (the geeks). They will instantly undo any thing you have done.

      Oh, question.....do your really need a mod chip to run Linux on a Xbox? Seems to me I saw a post here celebrating not needing one any more.

      --

      Gorkman

    15. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is, in fact, correct. You are not buying a license, you are buying a copy of the software, your rights to which are constrainted slightly and temporarily (in theory. Heh) by copyright law. There is no support in law for any other interpretation, yet Microsoft appears to have slipped this concept into the minds of citizens AND judges everywhere.

      Note to anyone who thinks otherwise: If there is already support in law for this, then why did software companies try so desperately to get the UCITA passed at the state level to implement it? (It, fortunately, died a horrible death in most places, excluding Maryland, Virginia, and Texas) Answer: There's no support for it, and they were trying desperately to shore up their untenable legal positions before anyone noticed. Fortunately, Bush siezed the White House soon after, proving the corruption of the judiciary and instituting a pro-corporate, anti-market government.

    16. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's your situation. But when I buy a box with a disc in it, I am buying a box with a disc in it. I have neither signed nor agreed to any "license".

      When you open that box, you are agreeing to a license. Most pieces of software come with a disc in a sleeve with a sticker that says "by opening this you are agreeing to whatever contract". You don't need to physically sign something for a contract to be legally binding. Ask a lawyer.

    17. Re:hardware not license by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Um, that actually is not the same type of situation at all. In that case, it's not that your guy was arrested for modifying the car, but breaking EPA laws. If the car manufacturer itself released such a chip, they'd get sued for it too. It's analagous to meaking weapons in your back yard. I'm perfectly entitled to make a potato cannon with some PVC pipe and WD-40. I can shoot all the trees I want with it. That act, is not in itself illegal. But if I use it to break a seperate law, such as if I shoot someone with it, it is this seperate act that is illegal.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:hardware not license by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      You should be able to modify any equipment you own without fear of prosecution because the effect of that modification could possibly, in certain specific circumstances, violate copyright laws.

      Agreed, and the DMCA does not prevent you from doing this. You can modify your X-box to make espresso, and you are well within your rights. You can even distribute all the information so all the other X-Box owners can do it.

      What you can't do is sell, or distribute, a device that circumvents copyright protection mechanisms. You know, like a modchip does.

      It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.

      It's nothing like it. It's like arresting someone for building a better engine, when in fact all they do is some minor changes to the computer and sell that engine as their own. Or even better, it's not a fucking analogy.

      This guy sells modchips which allow an Xbox to play pirated games, right? There is no analogy needed. Nobody is stopping you from doing whatever the hell you want to your hardware, as long as you do it.

      He still violated software copyright laws, not anything related to hardware.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    19. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come over here and have a lil suck of my big ole beef stick, little white boy.

      Drink up on my manchowder, asshat.

    20. Re:hardware not license by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like to support you unfortunetly The only reason most people buy a Xbox mod chip is to cheat... & they prefer to cheat online when possible (& yes it is possible to cheat online, you just have to disable any mod chip before going online). Or to play games they don't own...

      Do you really weant to support cheaters & pirates?

      I'm already dreading the release of PSO for xbox in about a week since teh first thing more than 2 dozen cheaters have decided to do is ruin the game for everyone by using their mod chips to unfairly raise their character level & get the rare items in the game...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    21. Re:hardware not license by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea: Read the article. He was selling derivatives of the copyrighted BIOS. That's illegal. It's incredibly simple, but you seem to have missed it. Instead, you launched into a pointless tirade about hardware rights.

      The sheepish Slashbots will jump on your post like wild, ravenous wolves and won't be able to mod your post up to "+5" soon enough. You'll get extra brownie points among them for using a car analogy. Meanwhile, the real reason he was arrest--illegally selling the hacked BIOS--will go unnoticed.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    22. Re:hardware not license by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1
      i used to work with a guy who sold modified chips for mustangs and corvettes.

      we put the cars up on a dyno, hooked up a logic analyzer and some telemetry on the fuel injection system to figure out how the factory chip worked, and made a modified version which produced 25% more horsepower.

      great business until he was arrested and his business confiscated for selling equipment which circumvented EPA laws.

      car owners didn't like it, but environmentalists thought it was a prudent application of the law.


      I think this is an entirely different situation.
      If the chip was tweaked while still keeping the car within EPA specs, then no law would be broken.

      If the chip brings the car outside EPA specs, then it would have to be specifically labelled for "off-road use only." Which means that you'd technically have to trailer your car to the track if you intendted to race it, because the car is no longer street legal.

      The factory chip contains no proprietary code. Heck, it's just a PROM and all it really contains is a table of lookup values used by the engine computer, please correct me if I'm wrong.
      There may be proprietary software in the onboard computer, but that's irrelevant if all you're doing is altering the input data (fuel/air mixture, rev limiter, etc).

      But if you're setting those values so that the car no longer passes emissions, and it's not marketed for off-road use only, then sure that's against the law.

      In reality, it's because the EPA hippies are just mad at people who have rumbly V8's. :p
      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    23. Re:hardware not license by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      As long as you're not on a public road, you can go as fast as the landowner will let you. You don't even need plates or a license.

    24. Re:hardware not license by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Actually there are rules for private speedways in most states. Also, there are often rules governing what sort of horsepower/gearing ratios are street legal. (In CA, you don't even have to be moving to get a ticket for "aggressive display of speed" -- just showing off the capability is enough, like revving at a light, warming up your tires, etc.) But generally, simply being capable of exceeding the speed limit is not enough to make your car illegal; and certainly selling the parts to make the car go faster isn't illegal, unless there are specific issues making the parts themselves illegal: For instance, you fabbed a patented part, or you stamped someone's trademark on it.

      If someone sold me a part for my Saab that had a Saab insignia stamped on it, I'd scream bloody murder about the counterfeit (and I'm the *customer*, not Saab!) That's a whole lot closer to the issue here in this particular case, except that the customer is complicit in the fraud, not a victim.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    25. Re:hardware not license by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Bush siezed the White House

      I choose to look at it like this:

      A person who does not cast a ballot, votes for "whomever wins". So the end result is, the number of registered voters who did not cast a ballot, are votes for Bush. My apologies if your non-vote didn't go to the guy you wanted...

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    26. Re:hardware not license by hhknighter · · Score: 1

      I am not a car fanatic, but I don't think there are copy-protection schemes in the process of getting a new engine in.

      I don't think you can disassemble an engine and copy its technology either?

    27. Re:hardware not license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Singapore, it is Illegal to make the law more difficult to catch you ( and fine you ).
      So engine upgrades and radar detectors are illegal. Yes, you might decide to run away/hide from the traffic police !

    28. Re:hardware not license by LadyLucky · · Score: 1
      You are not buying the same sort of thing when you buy software, where you are technically buying a license, not a disk with software on it.

      Hey! Slashbot!

      It's selling them that's illegal, not using them!

      --
      dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
  9. This isn't abuse of the DMCA... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because the DMCA is already abusive...it's just being applied normally. Best thing is to repeal that abomination.

  10. Neuromancer by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

    Not that I would, but I suppose one could always market LSD as a modchip for your brain...

    Wasn't that the point of Neuromancer?

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:Neuromancer by BastardSonOfRave · · Score: 1

      Nah, that was all about the blue gels! Mmmmm...drugs of a dystopian future.

  11. Why did he plead guilty? by mocm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An X-Box mod chip is not an illegal copyright circumvention devices. It's an access restriction circumvention device. It gives you access to your X-Box hardware. What you do after that is your responsibility not the vendor's of the chip.
    He must have had a bad lawyer. He could only be guilty if he included part of MS X-Box ROM on the chip. That would have been a copyright violation.
    There is no DMCA violation here.

    --
    ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
    1. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      He must have had a bad lawyer.

      Basically, he had less money so he lost. Trials involving corporations have absolutely nothing to do with justice. It is purely down to who has the most money. He could have pled innocent and suffered long drawn out trial which run him into $1000's debt to his lawyer. Microsoft, et al would use stalling tactics to see that this happens and will use every trick in the book to delay proceedings, etc. In most cases they win and the little guy is now totally fucked for the rest of his life because of legal costs - I guess he decided it wasn't worth the risk of fighting.
    2. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by octalgirl · · Score: 1

      That's what I was wondering. Why did he plead guilty? $$ probably. Getting sued or arrested for this type of stuff is becoming more like extortion lately. I would have liked to see this one play out in the courts. People simply cannot afford the battle, so they cave in. It's not against the law to make and sell bullets, so why the hell would it be to make a mod chip?

    3. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Getting sued or arrested for this type of stuff is becoming more like extortion lately.

      Ever heard of Miranda rights?

      "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"

      In criminal cases, money is not a problem. It's in civil cases where you have to empty your wallet.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that he lost because he had less money? Mr. AC, are you talking out of your ass again?

      I know this is Slashdot, but I'm really getting sick of BS statements. Civil suits often do put a big hurt on the company. If they were invincible as you suggest, then they wouldn't be screaming for tort reform.

      Now, if you would have said "Trials involving corporations often have absolutely nothing...", then I would agree with you.

    5. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by icemind · · Score: 1, Informative

      He was selling the Enigmah chip. It includes a hacked version of the XBox BIOS, unlike most which come blank.

    6. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Miranda rights?

      "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"


      Yes, and those court-appointed attorneys worked out so well for all the innocents convicted of murder and executed (or very nearly executed) in Texas, Illinois and other states...

    7. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only applies to the indigant. You have to basically have no money before the courts will appoint you an attorney. People with even a little bit of money have to spend it first. Fighting against a corporaton which has already bought the law being used against you is damn near impossible. Justice left this system long ago.

    8. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by TCaptain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about where you are but here, unless you make less than $11K a year you are not entitled to an attorney paid by legal-aid. You are determined to be able to afford one (and its my opinion that those bureaucrats were on crack...I make a LOT more than 11K a year and I couldn't afford an attorney at 200$/hour to defend me from a criminal charge...)

      --
      "I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
    9. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Troed · · Score: 5, Informative
      Mod parent down - everything in that post is wrong.


      Most Xbox-modchips comes with a hacked version of the Microsoft BIOS. The Enigmah is the exception because it only contains the positions of the original BIOS to patch, and does that on-the-fly.


      The Enigmah has been considered to be the legal modchip, together with the blank ones (XII Pro, OpenXbox)

    10. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by GarryOwen · · Score: 1

      AC - you are thinking of the wrong kind of trial. This was a criminal trial which means (technically), that corporate money had nothing to do with the length of trial. He was going up against a prosecutor who is funded by state/fed. He plead guilty instead of fighting. Personally, I think he had a horrible lawyer to plead guilty to this. Now his chances of appeal are next to none.

    11. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "He was going up against a prosecutor who is funded by state/fed."

      Kind of a moot point really. The corporation bought the law and now they don't even have to pay for the lawyers to enforce it.

      "I think he had a horrible lawyer to plead guilty to this."

      Most people can't afford good lawyers. They either use the court appointed one who sleeps through the trial of they flip through the yellow pages.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    12. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by ryanr · · Score: 1

      They probably threatened him with 20 years in jail per chip sold or something similar.

    13. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate money has everything to do with the length of the trial because the corporations own the government.

    14. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by AintTooProudToBeg · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, the corporation does not get to prosecute with their lawyers.

    15. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus give it a rest with the leftist crap. Yeah corporations have done a lot of evil things but at the end of the day they are run by people just like you and me, people who just want the best for themselves, their families, and everybody else provided it doesn't hurt them. I am tired of corporations getting bashed as these evil entities who are out to fuck us all over, when its just not the case. They are out to make a profit for their executives and shareholders and most of those shareholders are you and I. We can debate the merits of some executives getting wildly overpaid as employees get fucked, and yes that kind of stuff is wrong but it is also far less common than the leftist media would lead you to believe. For every asshole you have a couple hundred decent guys who try to do right by their people and their customers. But I digress as that is a subject for another discussion.

      As someone else pointed out, this was a criminal trial meaning there are no corporate dollars of any kind involved. And if it hadn't been a criminal trial, but a civil one I have absolutely no problem with a company putting as many resources as it can into a precedent-setting case that protects its own intellectual property.

      There is NOTHING illegal about selling modchips. Any court case that argues otherwise, I am opposed to.

      However in this case, we have a circumstance where a little punk thought he could make some bucks profiting off of his site's high profile with the warez kiddies by pushing modchips packed with STOLEN CODE. I love the fact that he's going to be someone's bitch in prison and I love the fact that he has to fork over some dough to come up with this. I love the fact that he's now a felon and won't be able to get a decent job. Basically I love the fact that justice was done and that this little profiteering punk will get what's coming to him.

    16. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      The Enigmah has been considered to be the legal modchip, together with the blank ones (XII Pro, OpenXbox)


      You need to change has been considered to be the legal to is no longer legal.

    17. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      In most cases they win and the little guy is now totally fucked for the rest of his life because of legal costs - I guess he decided it wasn't worth the risk of fighting.

      What is 5 months of your life worth? Is it worth $50,000? You can borrow $50,000 to hire a good lawyer your defense. $50,000 is not that much money when you think about it. Many young students borrow twice that to go to college for a few years. It takes them 10 years to pay it off. It's no big deal. Isn't defending your freedom worth $50,000?

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    18. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      Where are you? Because I wouldn't want to inadverdently go there...

    19. Re:Why did he plead guilty? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap! What state are you in?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  12. The article went on to state... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    That every retailer in the USA was to be jailed for selling "007: Agent Under Fire"

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:The article went on to state... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that game sucks. It's only use for the buffer overrun needed to boot linux on an unmodded box.

  13. Old burner for sale by FatalTourist · · Score: 3, Funny

    I need to sell this old 12x CD burner. It tears right through Safe Disc. So let's see, $15 is a fair price.
    $15 + $7 (UPS Ground) + $28500 (DMCA fine)

    Ok, any takers?

    --


    Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
  14. Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's been illegal since 1975.

  15. USA government is just a tool for big business by monkeyserver.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks george w. I used to think this country served the ppl, now I realise that all it does is serve to perpetuate big business and the top .01% of the population.

    I just heard news of how soldiers took one of saddam's 7 palaces, and how extravagent it is. All marble floors and 18k gold faucets (which isn't too expensive, gold is cheap over there). They were saying how horrible it is that ppl are starving and the ruling class lives in such luxury. How is this that different from the US? We might not be killing as many of our citizens, but apparently we'll use our gestapo to throw them in jail and take their money if they tinker with their own personal property, or if they interfere with some companies defunct business plan.

    Last I checked, I own my PS2, if want to throw it off my balcony, I can. If I want to add microchips, I can. it's mine, I bought it, I don't remember sony lending it to me....

    --
    http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
    1. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by kableh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree with all your other points, and believe me, I loathe Dubya as much as you most likely, but the DMCA passed under Clinton's watch, so...

      Then again, the economy wasn't in the shitter back then, so who really gave a rat's ass? *looks down at his DeCSS shirt*

    2. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy WAS in the shitter at the end of Clinton's term.

    3. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of that DeCSS shirt, can we finally wear that thing in public?

    4. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't thank George W - Clinton signed the DMCA. The Demopublicans are pretty much together on this sort of thing.

    5. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton signed the DMCA, not Bush.

    6. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Ralph Nader were in office today, things would be different. Vote Nader in 2004.

    7. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Jeehoba · · Score: 1

      Your wallet may have been slim with him in office, but you were one the few. The numbers speak for themselves the unemployment rate here in Ohio was up around 7.0% when Clinton came into office and steadily fell. Since G.W. Bush has been in office it keeps going back up. Looks like he is trying to repeat his daddy's legacy ... oh yeah ... he was the one that took the unemployment rate up so high before Clinton took office.

    8. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by kableh · · Score: 1

      Never stopped me, I make a point of wearing it to the movie theatre =)

    9. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking idiot.

      The downslide started in 2000...when Clinton was in office.

      Bush cannot enact any economic policies til the FALL of his first year in office(2001).

      Sorry if these facts throw your fantasy world off.

    10. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We might not be killing as many of our citizens
      Are you sure about that? got figures on that?, Last I saw your death penalty was happily tucking away quite alot of people (a percentage of those innocent i might add).

    11. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by monkeyserver.com · · Score: 1

      did you see the "might"? that was part of my point.....

      --
      http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
    12. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you sure about that? got figures on that?, Last I saw your death penalty was happily tucking away quite alot of people (a percentage of those innocent i might add).
      Speaking of 'Are you sure about that?' and 'got figures on that?', please name any one person killed by the US death penalty in the last 20 years who has been shown to have been innocent.

      (Hint: if any existed, their name and story would be very well-known)

    13. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That's capitalism, baby.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    14. Re:USA government is just a tool for big business by kableh · · Score: 1

      Fantasy world? When did I say Clinton had anything to do with the economy?

      And care to explain how Bush's tax cut helped the economy at all? It's still in the shitter, teachers are getting laid off, the VA system is losing a ton of funding next year, all so Cheney doesn't have to pay dividend taxes?

      Who's the fucking idiot? Try replying non-AC and maybe I'll give a fuck about your opinion.

  16. High Horse Jockey by WeenisMonster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Get on down, haughty brits. Microsoft 0wnZ j00 too. It is only a matter of time before the jeering goons in your parliament start milking the cash cow that is the microsoft lobby. Boooooooooo Booooooooooooo How long before the PM's Questions become an MS Circle-Jerk. We don't throw your tea in the harbor anymore, we tea bag your sleeping government with the hairy balls of capitalism.

  17. You know... by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty far to the right politically (okay, I admit it, I'm *really* far to the right) but even I think this is overly harsh. I know cops who have locked up drug dealers and even they didn't get slapped this hard.

    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of drug dealers? The shoot-up-your-mom and rape and pillage kind? Or the selling-pot-to-your-neighbors, get-stoned-and-eat-pizza kind? I hate it when people just assume stuff like that.

    2. Re:You know... by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

      Neither. The teenage-kid-who-sells-crack-cocaine-at-school-and- in-the-projects kind

  18. Hang on a second... by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I support the idea that people should have the right to do what they want with equipment they own, this guy made a living selling the copyrighted work of others... namely the programing in those chips (ie, the original MS BIOS which has been modified).

    Now, if he wanted to rewrite the bios, fine... but he didn't. He copied the MS Bios code, modified it, and sold it. It would be no different if I bought myself a copy of MS Windows, made some modifications to it, burned it to CD, and started selling it as my own.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:Hang on a second... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Funny
      Isn't that copyright infrigement?

      Why do we need the DMCA again? Oh yes, to assert our God Given Right to own ideas forever.

    2. Re:Hang on a second... by hklingon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Licensing can be a double edged sword. Courts have shown that Licenses are inalienable rights to works.* So... if you're buying one of these things on the condition that you own an X-Box, you are ALREADY licnesed for the use of it. Since you ALREADY have the unmodified bios in your XBOX, and you can only use one at a time, he isn't technically changing anything about the nature of who has what code.

      *By inalienable, I mean outside forces can't destroy your license [fire, theft, etc]. I think the specific case was an office building burned down taking the paper license with it, but the company still had proof they bought it. Some company wanted them to re-license the software, but the courts ruled they didn't have to because it was a right-of use, largely intellectual work in nature.

    3. Re:Hang on a second... by BobRooney · · Score: 2, Informative

      "He copied the MS Bios code, modified it, and sold it."

      Fair enough, but how is that a criminal act exactly? Why is this guy in jail? He is certainly infringing on intellectual property rights and can be sued for damages in CIVIL courts. I'm not entirely sure this is a criminal activity at all. Should he have to pay damages to MS? Certainly, but he should not be fined nor should he be in jail.

    4. Re:Hang on a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a criminal act because the DMCA made it one.

    5. Re:Hang on a second... by radish · · Score: 1

      If the mod chip contained the exact same BIOS as in the Xbox already then I'd agree with you, but he modified it. That's the illegal bit. Just because I have a license for Windows XP, I do not have the right to disassemble it and start changing it.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:Hang on a second... by 10+Speed · · Score: 1

      not quite an accurate analogy, it would be more like modifying the calacualtor that ships in windows and then selling that...

      You still need windows (or in this case an XBox) to run it...

      at least I dont think anyone is selling XBox knock-offs yet

    7. Re:Hang on a second... by hklingon · · Score: 1

      Actually, as far as XP is concerned, you DO have the right to reverse engineer, decompile, modify, etc. I note you don't mention distribution ... You AGREE not reverse engineer, decompile, etc. though, because of how software is licensed. If you start distributing patches (in patch form) for Windows XP to make it better/faster/stronger, is that illegal too?? No. Breech of contract? Maybe. But when you're buying a box, you aren't making a contract. When you buy the box, do you own the design? No. Can you use it for whatever you wish? Yes. Hardware is not licensed to you. Software is, though, because of its nature. Technically, the software in the bios is licensed to you, but its under "default" legal terms as on XBOX powerup, you don't have to agree to waive any of your rights.

      When you say things like that, it starts down a slippery slope.

      If I modify windows dlls to make pancakes instead of display a gui, is that a jailable? What if instead I build a video card where windows thinks its drawing stuff, but instead its makin waffles on the model 3? If I modify the bios in my car to have a better fuel/oxygen intake ratio? is _that_ jailable, too? You seem to be saying so. I'm just saying it isn't as easy to draw the legal line as you imply.

    8. Re:Hang on a second... by radish · · Score: 1

      When you buy the box, do you own the design? No. Can you use it for whatever you wish? Yes

      Of course you can, I didn't say anything about hardware (sheesh I'm getting bored of this argument). This is software. You are not allowed to distribute others software without their permission. Period. He did so (not only that but it was a modified form of that software). Ergo, he broke the law on at least two counts. I don't personally believe the DMCA has anything to do with it, it's plain copyright law, but hey I'm not a lawyer.

      You seem to think there's something magical about a license. There's not. If I write some software and give you the source code, without any license or any other documentation I still own the copyright. You still are not allowed to copy it or distribute it. It's mine, I just implicitly allowed you access to it by giving it to you. Same with artworks. If you buy a poster from a shop are you allowed to photocpy it and give it to your friends? No. Is there a license on a poster? No.

      If I modify windows dlls to make pancakes instead of display a gui, is that a jailable
      It's illegal. Jailable? Well that depends on the penalty attached to the law.

      if instead I build a video card where windows thinks its drawing stuff, but instead its makin waffles on the model 3?
      Hardware - irrelevant.

      If I modify the bios in my car to have a better fuel/oxygen intake ratio?
      Illegal. Replacing the chip with an all new BIOS? Fine.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    9. Re:Hang on a second... by Catiline · · Score: 1
      we need the DMCA ... to assert our God Given Right to own ideas forever.
      I see you intended this as a "funny", but apparently not everyone sees the joke.

      IANAL, but the wording of the Constitution makes it clear that (in the US) copyright is not a God Given Right. How can a natural, god-given right be both conditional ("to promote the Useful Arts") and time-limited in nature?
    10. Re:Hang on a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DCMA was used because that way it's a federal crime tried in criminal court, rather than a civil crime.

  19. On way or the other, they caught him by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    David Rocci, the Al Capone of the 21st century.

  20. Intertwined corporate and legal abuse.. by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

    The first rule of enforcing laws where making money is attached, "Make examples out of people, real bad examples to scare the rest of them". This is purely a "make an example out of someone" excercise for the DMCA, business as usual.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  21. Radio Shack set for hefty fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the modchip composed of off the shelf components. It is therefore possible to create your own modchip with a quick visit to radioshack/other electronic store. By all rights this means that all electrical stores are in violation of the DCMA and will be set hefty fines.

    1. Re:Radio Shack set for hefty fines by kableh · · Score: 3, Informative

      More or less. It is a flash memory chip, similar to the NVRAM on your motherboard. In fact, I hear that is how a lot of people flash them, putting the chips in an older motherboard and flashing them with a BIOS image for the Xbox.

      But that is the catch: If this guy was selling just the chips, with nothing programmed on them, then he would have a legitimate defense. If he was selling them programmed with a hax0red BIOS image, it most likely contained Microsoft copyrighted code, which IS a copyright violation. How that falls under the auspices of the DMCA I don't know.

      That said, if there was a legitimate BIOS image, mod chips probably would fall under the interoperability clause of the DMCA. IANAL, but you could at least defend it that way, with all the homebrew software out there.

    2. Re:Radio Shack set for hefty fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there IS a legitimate bios image. Its made with NO MS code, and is used to boot linux on the xbox.

  22. It is sad, but what can you expect? by peerogue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is sad.

    I have a friend of mine who, way back in 1991, had dissecated his HP calculator (HP-48S). He had found a way (by chance) to read memory through one of the HP-48S functions, and, knowing the chip used, was able to disassemble the ROM of the calculator.

    This allowed him to create new functions like ".." to move up the directory hierarchy of the calcultor, or even setup a password-protected login. Cool nerd things.

    Anyway, he published his book in France. A few weeks later, he was contacted by HP. They wanted to know how he got those information. He told them and was no further bothered.

    Now imagine it would have been in the USA with a DMCA law. This kind of reverse engineering and publishing could have been sanctionned, despite the fact that it did not harm HP a bit, nor did it reveal trade secrets. It merely gave a way for geeks to use the HP-48S in cool new ways.

    Back to the topic, I would say that this case shows us how a law can be used against the people that elected their representatives, who in turn voted such a law. Sometehing did not get right here.

    The law is the law, it must be applied. At the same time, people must realize that this law is a bad one, that it gives too much power to companies, and that it prevents "fair use".

    Selling mod chips is not an activity I would blame. It does not hurt my values, nobody is hurt in the process, and people modify hardware they bought. Yet it is unlawful. If it chokes you as well, it means we both agree the law needs to be changed.

    If you don't like that, don't buy this company's hardware. And write to your representative to have the law revisited.

    1. Re:It is sad, but what can you expect? by Windcatcher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have heard it said: "There is no better way to get rid of an unjust law than rigorous enforcement."

    2. Re:It is sad, but what can you expect? by GoodFun!!!!!!!! · · Score: 0

      " I would say that this case shows us how a law can be used against the people that elected their representatives, who in turn voted such a law. Sometehing did not get right here." Damn straight. I voted for Bush, I should be immune from prosecution for the remainder of his term! The people aren't smart enough to know what's good for them. I think your post proves that point pretty well. We need the guiding hand of an enlightened theocracy to guide our people into the arms of Jesus, while our enemies burn in the eternal fires of Hades.

    3. Re:It is sad, but what can you expect? by i · · Score: 1

      *IF* a majority (or a big minority) of the voters are affected. If only a little minority is affected, it can go on forever.

      The majority don't care what happens people they are not interested in.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
  23. TechTV Xbox Series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TechTV has recently been running a whole series on The Screen Savers teaching viewers how to mod the Xbox, how to do game "backups", use it as a media player and all those goodies. I'm interested in seeing how much trouble they'll get into for this one. I'm surprised they didn't yank it after the first installment of the series.

    1. Re:TechTV Xbox Series by randomdef · · Score: 1

      Actually it was delayed, the first air date was a week before it actually showed, they yanked it a few hours before showtime. chances are they got the legal go-ahead from there lawyers and proceeded this week.

  24. Why the DMCA licks it... by este · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read -alot- of postsalong the lines of "What's the big deal? If it's illegal, it's wrong!"

    Bullshit.

    It was once illegal for non-white non-male U.S. citizens to vote, but that doesn't mean it would have been wrong for then to do so, nor is it now. Yes - some courts interpret the DMCA in such a way that things like modding your own hardware are copyright circumvention and are therefore, under the Act, illegal.

    But there's more depth to this issue.

    1) In my opinion, mostly, I can do whatever I want to what I own. I could put my Xbox in a washing machine, throw it off a cliff, or fill it with Jagermeister. It's mine.

    2) Just because an object has the potential to violate a law does not automatically mean it does. If I work at a Wal-mart, and sell you a baseball bat, and you crack someone over the head with it, I'm not going to be charged with homicide. That's the end-user's fate.

    3) Are a good deal of mod chips used for playing illegally copied materials? You bet. But that's not all you can use them for. Just because hareware has capabilities that are illegal (see #2), doesn't mean that's what it'll be used for, nor can it belabled a "circumvention device". I mean, if you're going to slap that label on, why would no the Xbox itself be a part of that group too? You need the machine as much as the chip to play a pirated game.

    The point is, there simply exists too much ambiguity to assuredly charge that mod chips and the like are outright "circumvention materials". And as such, one who sells them a) should not be held responsible for selling such a product, and b) should not be held responsible for it's eventual use. Exploitation of legal ambiguity? Maybe. But that's what makes America great ;-)

    --
    [este]
    1. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by phunhippy · · Score: 1

      1) In my opinion, mostly, I can do whatever I want to what I own. I could put my Xbox in a washing machine, throw it off a cliff, or fill it with Jagermeister. It's mine.

      are you a bloody savage? How dare you waste perfectly good nectar of the gods(otherwise known as Jagermeister) inside an Xbox!!!

      SHAME ON YOU!

    2. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by incompetent_bitch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with most of you post, but your analogy is a bit weak. A baseball bat is specifically designed to play baseball, it just happens to be used by hired goons to bash some heads, knees, etc. Let's say 98% of all baseball bats are used for completely legit purpose of playing baseball and 2% for said bashing. This is not enough to make the bat illegal.

      Now, to continue with the numbers from above. A mod chip can be used for completely legit uses, like Linux dev kit. However, the primary purpose is for pirated games (sorry, don't have any numbers, but I doubt they even exist). 98% of all mod chips are probably used for playing pirated games and 2% for legit uses. You see where this is going. If the overwhelming usage is legit (baseball bats) the object won't be illegal, but if the overwhelming usage is not legit (mod chips), then the object will be illegal.

      The problem is, there's no "magic" percentage when something transfers from legit use to non-legit use. However, right now, the overwhelming percentage of mod chips are used for one purpose, to play pirated games. Some are used for legit uses, but that small percentage is not enough for courts to look the other way.

    3. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by TrollBridge · · Score: 1
      Way to try to morally equate the DMCA to institutional discrimination. You have successfully discredited your entire argument, but I'll refute it anyway.

      1) I don't think Microsoft cares what you do with your machine as long as it's not rigged to cut into their profits. I don't care how many people who claim to use mod chips for reasons other than playing games they haven't paid for, most of them are dishonest.

      2) Combined with the nature and content of this person's website, the intend of his actions was crystal clear. The mod chips themselves didn't incriminate him; his entire site (which I would imagine was used as evidence) did.

      3) "You need the machine as much as the chip to play a pirated game." Clarification - you need the machine AND the mod chip to play a pirated game. The machine/chip combo isn't what Microsoft sells.

      I'll agree that Microsoft is ignoring an untapped market here for people who simply want to make backups of their games. If they were to incorporate something like a CD burner feature that brands a backup with a unique identifier that only lets the backup run on that particular machine, they could pull it off. But then, I suppose, the Slashdot faithful would cry about that too.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    4. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by dissy · · Score: 1

      > 1) I don't think Microsoft cares what you do with your machine
      > as long as it's not rigged to cut into their profits.

      So, by your logic, if i purchase an xbox with the preintent of never ever turning it on and/or buying games, its perfectly OK to throw me in jail because i am cutting into M$'s profits?

      I thought if I sold you a piece of hardware, you owned it.

      So now i can sell you a piece of hardware, with the claim i need to make alot more money off of it than whatever we aggree is the sale price, and I can have you thrown in jail if you dont deliver?

      Hey, wanna buy this piece of wood for $1? We can talk about you buying the nails later ;)

    5. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting about the homebrew software scene which has been making serious progress in mapping out the X-Box hardware.

      There's still a very large group of people working on that sort of thing, and many of them are either being very quiet, posting under psuedonyms, or out of the USA because you simply can't homebrew code without a modchip.

    6. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      2) Just because an object has the potential to violate a law does not automatically mean it does. If I work at a Wal-mart, and sell you a baseball bat, and you crack someone over the head with it, I'm not going to be charged with homicide. That's the end-user's fate.

      Wal-Mart has been sued for selling a shotgun to a mentally deficient individual, who then used it to shoot himself. The plantiffs' case was essentially that Wal-Mart should have KNOWN he intended to commit suicide, and not sold him the weapon. IIRC, Wal-Mart lost.

      While I (and most rational people) agree with your statement, a large percentage of folks seem to feel that end users are not responsible for anything that happens (intentional or otherwise) and the responsibility rests with whoever happens to have the deepest pockets.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    7. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      there's no "magic" percentage when something transfers from legit use to non-legit use.

      Sure there is. When it's used legitimately 0.00% of the time. A mathemetician would say that's improbable, though, and an engineer would say that's impossible :D As long as we got guys like MacGuyver around, anyways.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    8. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "So, by your logic, if i purchase an xbox with the preintent of never ever turning it on and/or buying games, its perfectly OK to throw me in jail because i am cutting into M$'s profits?"

      Not at all. Not buying software doesn't affect Microsoft's profits. Playing a game you haven't paid for on said X-Box does, namely the $50 that Microsoft gets from people who DO pay for the game.

    9. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Playing a game you haven't paid for on said X-Box does, namely the $50 that Microsoft gets from people who DO pay for the game.
      Mmm-hmm. And who said I was going to buy the game if I couldn't play it for free?

      Microsoft does not lose $50 if I play a copied game without buying it. They only lose $50 if I play a copied game _instead of_ buying it. Simply playing a copied game doesn't imply that I would have bought it otherwise.

      Oh, they do lose $50 if I would have bought the game, but instead I play the copied game, realize it's crap, and never touch it again. But in that case, were they really entitled to the $50?

    10. Re:Why the DMCA licks it... by este · · Score: 1

      > 1) I don't think Microsoft cares what you do with your machine as long as it's not rigged to cut into their profits.

      Well, if M$ loses money on every Xbox sold, then wouldn't buying it be just such an act?

      --
      [este]
  25. Re:Slashbay by somethingwicked · · Score: 1

    I'll give you $10, you pay the shipping *grin*

    Check my Karma, it's Exceeellleent! That's even better than feedback!

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

  26. bloody pathetic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless we all voice our opinion about such abuses we will only see a rise in the creation of these new laws. Remember that the stakeholders who actually influence the legislation of such laws are powerful individuals and corporations and unless we as the people form some kind of protest the future of free society as well know it is completely doomed.

  27. Who abused what? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The site was isonews. Dedicated to posting .nfos and tracking all the releases in the warez scene. While they didnt link to downloads, or allow site advertising in the forums, the forums were full of people talking about how to copy this or play that on whichever console.

    The site was not about 'backups', it was not about linux, it was not about fair use. It was about piracy.

    And he sold Xbox modchips. He couldnt sit and yammer in court about fair use rights or running linux legally. He sold them for a specific purpose - playing illegal copies.

    You can also make something of the fact that he was convicted for selling the 1st gen modchip Enigmah. Basically all xbox mods are bios hacks/replacements. The enigmah had a hacked version of the xbox bios.

    Newer mods are basically blank flashroms. (Homebrew mods are blank flashroms) I don't see how you could be convicted selling those, unless you specifically make a point of saying the device is for playing pirated software.

    I'm all against the government abusing its power.. Yeah yeah. But this guy abused his (and by extension everyone elses) "fair use" rights.

    Screw him. He and people like him are the reason the DMCA passed in the first place.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Who abused what? by Havokmon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm all against the government abusing its power.. Yeah yeah. But this guy abused his (and by extension everyone elses) "fair use" rights.
      Screw him. He and people like him are the reason the DMCA passed in the first place.

      I'm with you on him 'doing wrong' and being punished for it, but prosecuting him under the DMCA fucked us all. Now there's a documented case of manufacturer vs. distributor of 'hardware modification' equipment, and the manufacturer winning outright.

      I'm starting to fear for my new arcade hobby. What if I get a JAMMA adapter that allows my JAMMA cabinet to play Galaga? Is Namco going to come after me?

      Or better, what If I wanted to hook my PC to my JAMMA cabinet with a J-PAC? Sure, a lot of people use it to play MAME (which is illegal if you don't own the board), but you're not restricted to MAME games. Put on a trackball, and it could be a 'web browser arcade cabinet'.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    2. Re:Who abused what? by Zordak · · Score: 1
      but prosecuting him under the DMCA fucked us all.
      Actually, it may not be as damaging as it appears to be on the surface. If some hardware company tried to sue/prosecute/persecute somebody exercising true fair use rights using this as a precedent, the defendant's lawyer would be all over the significant differences in the case. I don't think this will set a real, useful precedent except in the prosecution of people running warez sites and then selling devices to make the warez useful. In fact, I don't see this as a "sad abuse of the DMCA" at all. This is exactly the kind of case the DMCA was purportedly written to address, and if it were only applied to this kind of thing, it would pretty well be a non-issue.
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    3. Re:Who abused what? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Newer mods are basically blank flashroms. (Homebrew mods are blank flashroms) I don't see how you could be convicted selling those, unless you specifically make a point of saying the device is for playing pirated software.

      Whoa, hold on there. Are you saying that I can sell a device that has potentially illegal uses, but only if I don't mention said uses? So I'm free to sell, say, firearms, but only if I call them guns, and not robbery assistance devices? Sounds kinda scary to me...

      I think you've forgotten about the concept of significant, non-infringing use. The reason guns are legal, as is the sale of them, is because they, theoretically, have significant non-infringing uses (target shooting, self-defense, etc). An even better example is VCRs, which have obvious, non-infringing uses. The same goes for mod chips. These things have, IMHO, real, significant non-infringing uses, the least of which is the use of Linux on the X-Box.

      Now, if the chip has copyrighted material on it (ie, the BIOS), that's a totally different thing. But a blank mod-chip? That should definitely be legal, no matter how you market the thing. At least, IMHO.

  28. The DMCA was put into effect under Bill Clinton. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Not George W.
    Get it straight before you start blaming people you disagree with for the worlds problems.

  29. so "gay" = "stupid" by barryfandango · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    (yes, offtopic, but I can't let this stuff slip by.)


    I hear ignorant people say this sometimes and it never fails to surprise me. In their defense they're usually acting out some gradeschool conditioning and are not truly hateful or bigotted people. But holy cow, grow up.

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
  30. Hey, YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's not start injecting facts to this discussion, mmmkay? Remember, this is Slashdot.

  31. The Iraqi's must be so excited! by freedommatters · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the Iraqis realise what Bush means by freedom they'll wonder what all the talk of liberation was about!

    All I want for Christmas is my Constitutional Rights

    1. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you fag! unless you or someone you care about was out there bleeding in the sand you've got no goddamn right to spout trash like that. if i knew were you lived, i'd pay you a visit and kick your ass.

    2. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by freedommatters · · Score: 1

      lovely language. i have every respect for the troops out there but i also have *EVERY* goddamn right to say what i want to say.

      Saddam is Gone By Bush Remains

    3. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by Jack+Comics · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ugh. Bush this, Bush that. Please think before you talk. Bush wasn't the one who enacted the DMCA. No, it was the one you liberal freaks all love... Bill Clinton. If you don't like the law, fine, but blame it on the right person at least. Bush has as much to do with the DMCA as Clinton does with the Patriot Act, i.e. nothing.

      Too bad Clinton still isn't in office... maybe he could have pardoned the guy for the right amount of money, just like so many other criminals he pardoned.

      --
      "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
    4. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed the announcement where Bush said that he's repealing the DMCA...

      Sorry, but the man who perpetuates a bad law is just as guilty as the man who introduces one.

    5. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Right, because Bush created the DMCA... [/sarcasm]

      This has nothing to do with our current president, you twit. These laws were enacted by our politicians under Clinton - but even Clinton had no say in it so we can't blame him, either. Stop placing blame where it doesn't belong.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    6. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by freedommatters · · Score: 1

      when you grow up and realize that it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat, come back and have an adult conversation. you "twit"

    7. Re:The Iraqi's must be so excited! by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can realize what Bush means by freedom if we take you and put you in a pre-war Iraq and make you live the life they were living.

      --

      ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  32. These crazy fcks *love* the DMCA! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
  33. The purpose of jails by Obasan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many of the threads on this story - I suspect, will follow one of a few different aspects of this case. Whether this fellow "Deserved" what happened because what he was doing was allowing the illegal copying of copyprotected works. Whether or not "tool" providers should be prosecuted rather than those actually circumventing copy protections and breaking copyright law, and general challenges to the legitimacy of the DMCA.

    I'd like to bring up another thread - the appropriate use of prisons in our society. It has come to pass that the answer to all criminal activities is "send them to prison". Does this make sense for non-violent crimes such as this? This guy didn't rob a liquor store, he didn't point a gun, knife or other weapon at anyone. He didn't threaten anyone. What, exactly, is the point of sending someone like this to jail?

    I'm not going to argue whether he deserves punishment or not - I'm sure that will be handled in a lot of other threads. But if we are going to punish these kinds of crimes - what punishment should be used? Having a prison population is a huge burden on society, and its reformative powers are pretty dubious at best. Are we not better off assigning community service hours or similar types of punishments for these kinds of crimes?

    Thoughts?
    Obasan

    1. Re:The purpose of jails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You must not be in the US. Recently saw a commericial for a radio station sponsered "Rally for America" where they had what appeared to be young people making "patriotic" statements. One of them was "I support anything our government does." How patriotic is that? We know have 2 million people in prison because of thinking like that. In Ohio they recently tried to pass a state constitutional admendent that would have let judges give non-violent drug offenders rehab instead of jail time. It would have saved the state money, but it didn't pass. Guess what Ohio is now having to cut education.

      So which country are you from and can I go there to get out of this place?

    2. Re:The purpose of jails by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does this make sense for non-violent crimes such as this?
      Yes and no. The original purpose of jails might have been to remove dangerous people from society in order to make societ safer, but now part of the purpose is to hurt people. This punitive measure is meant to be a deterrent. After all, you don't want to go to jail, right? So you'll obey the law, out of fear.
      Having a prison population is a huge burden on society, and its reformative powers are pretty dubious at best.
      Yeah, jailing has some major problems. In addition to the just overall cruelty, it's expensive and tends to be a training ground for creating "real" criminals. But...
      Are we not better off assigning community service hours or similar types of punishments for these kinds of crimes?
      ..does that really pack much punch in the fear department? Who is really afraid of being assigned community service hours? A lot of people serve their communities in some manner anyway, so it's a dubious deterrent at best. It might even lead to an increase in these types of "crimes" as it would make civil disobedience particularly attractive.

      The last thing you want is for the guy to be out in the community. When people ask him what he got sentenced for, he might tell them! That would only draw the public's attention to DMCA. Putting him in a jail where he won't be talking to "normal" people, can help to keep things under wraps so that the law doesn't get repealed so quickly.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:The purpose of jails by Doctor+Hu · · Score: 1
      ... This guy didn't rob a liquor store, he didn't point a gun, knife or other weapon at anyone. He didn't threaten anyone. ...
      No, but he did threaten - in no matter how small a way - a business model. Draw your own conclusions about how serious a crime this is now considered to be in the US compared with the counter-examples you gave. After all, a sane society wouldn't use prison as a punishment for a minor offense, with the associated risk of introducing the offender to experience and knowledge that would assist him/ her to progress to more serious crime, would it?

      </sarcasm>

    4. Re:The purpose of jails by awol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to bring up another thread - the appropriate use of prisons in our society.

      Thank you. But you have only identified half the problem. The real issue is the criminalisation of civil wrongs. It is _extremely_ distressing the extent to which wrongs, and I too choose not to decide if what this guy dud was actually wrong, of a commercial nature are being treated as criminal acts. The issue of the correct form of punishment is somewhat late after the fact.

      Even up until the 18th and 19th century there was imprisonment for debt, a truly nefarious practice whereby debtors were sent to gaol fro their inability to pay debts, the absurdity of this in that being in gaol robbed most of them of their capacity to repay the debt first incurred eventually lead to statutory prohibition on IFD. Have a look at any UK derived commonwealth (including most all of the US states) and you will find such a prohibition. The trend we are now observing with the DMCA etc is just wrong, eventually (and if we actually get off our asses, me included, it might be sooner) this will be fixed, but it's going to be later rather than sooner.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    5. Re:The purpose of jails by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Informative

      The original purpose of prisons, in English common law at least, was to hold people being sent off to the Penal Colonies, such as Austrailia, whilst they waited for a ship. It all went down hill from there.

      In ye olden days, if you were judged unfit for society, you were executed. Otherwise, you took your lashes, or your public humiliation in the stocks, or whatever, and went on with your life.

      Actually, the idea of 'incarceration as punishment' was mainly, I believe, saved for the nobility; they couldn't be executed, generally, for a variety of reasons, so 'house arrest' or being sent somewhere like the Tower of London was the answer.

      Of course, as Elizabeth Bathory will attest, they often didn't do half measures there, either; I believe she lasted 9 years bricked into a closet, with but a small slot for passing her food and drink.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:The purpose of jails by Sesticulus · · Score: 1

      However this kind of crime probably won't get him the kind of jail time you're thinking of. He'll end up at one of those resort jails (I know a few folks who've been honored guests). It's sort of dorm where you have to come home every night. He'll still have a job, go to work each day, church on the weekends if he wants to, etc.

    7. Re:The purpose of jails by rnelsonee · · Score: 1
      Well, community service is a good thing, but just to play devil's advocate here, I remember hearing that putting someone in jail served four purposes:

      • Punish the criminals. The obvious reason. Being in jail is certainly a punishmenet, even moreso than community service (although you could just say for every year of jailtime, you must do X amout of years of community service which could even it out).

      • Keep the criminal away from society. By keeping them in jail, you're preventing them from committing the same crime again, and amassing more victims. Community service does not meet this purpose.

      • Protect the victim, or victim's family. Not applicable in cases like this, where the criminal just wanted to make money. But you can see why someone convicted of attempted murder should be put away for bit. Either way, community service fails this test as well.

      • I forgot. Really. And it's been driving me nuts for years. Anyone else know? :)
    8. Re:The purpose of jails by karlm · · Score: 1

      Is "gaol" the correct British spelling of the American "jail"?

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    9. Re:The purpose of jails by awol · · Score: 1

      Primarily, yes it is just a spelling variant, and it is most often used to provide a sense of age, since the spelling was much more common in the pre 20th century context. However, the webster's 1913 entry http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WOR D=gaol shows that there seems to be a specific hostorical context for the contunued use of Gaol, (see the Gaol Delivery bit).

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
  34. DOJ Press Release on isonews.com by ayden · · Score: 4, Informative

    The DOJ posted their press release about this case on the seized isonews.com website.

    --
    "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
    1. Re:DOJ Press Release on isonews.com by visgoth · · Score: 1

      All your warez are belong to us!
      -The Government of the United States

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    2. Re:DOJ Press Release on isonews.com by Merk · · Score: 1

      I've asked before, but let me ask again. The isonews.com site features a logo from the original site. Isn't that copyright violation?

  35. In other news.... by Garion911 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hardware stores such as Home Depot, Sears, and others were closed permanently today in reaction to a lawsuit brought by Anderson Windows, Pella and other window manufacters.

    A Pella representative stated: "We have asked these stores to stop selling devices that are in violation of the DMCA in relation to our window products. They refused, stating that there are other uses for the devices in question, hence the lawsuit."

    When asked what products and how it was related to the DMCA, they responded: "Windows are digital. They are either open or closed. When closed, they are a security device. The stores were in violation of the DMCA by selling devices called 'hammers' that could easily remove the security of the device."

    (I'll leave the open and shut case jokes as an exercise for the reader..)

    --
    Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
  36. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by chrisseaton · · Score: 1

    Apologies. I didn't remember I was speaking to a broader audience - it's just an everyday adjective for something that's unnecessary or frivolous where I live.

  37. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You sound like a nigger!

    Apologies. I didn't remember I was speaking to a broader audience - it's just an everyday adjective for something that's stupid or brutish where I live.

  38. Digital Microsoft Control Act by drunk_as_in_beer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, really.. It's like I went to bed one night, and woke up the next morning, and just touching my computer had suddenly became illegal. I turned on my monitors, and hit alt-tab to switch to my e-mail program to check my mail (I happen to be running Linux, which is now illegal because it violates the DMCA), and all of a sudden FBI agents crashed throw my window and came in through my door, handcuffed me and hauled me directly to prison and took all the money out of my bank account and took all physical property that I owned including my car which happened to have a Linux CD in it. What is the world coming to? The future looks bleak...

    --
    --Drunk as in Beer
    1. Re:Digital Microsoft Control Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not funny. Homeland security can already do much of this if you are perceived as a threat to Uncle Sam (HS doesn't really protect the citizens of the USA, so much as it protects the gov't of the USA).

  39. But with cars... by Viral+Fly-by · · Score: 1
    ...you can't modify parts of the car and suddenly start duplicating engines/mufflers/alternators/wheels/etc...

    With a modchipped X-Box, you can feasibly start making copies (even if archival backups) of the games.

    I can almost guarantee you that if you could buy a Mustang, mod it a little, and start producing new Mustang parts, that Ford would be knocking on your door _very_ soon.

    1. Re:But with cars... by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? That's going to be news to all of the third party parts manufacturers. If you want to make a replacement headlight for a Mustang, you are free to do so. It would be insane to take any other approach really, which doesn't seem to stop Microsoft.

      Now you can't sell "Offical Ford Mustang Parts," but that's an entirely different area of the law. But you can sell "Viral Fly-by's Mustang head gasket replacement kit."

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:But with cars... by Number_5 · · Score: 1

      American automobile manufacturers tried very hard a few years back to limit the third party auto parts supply. The third party manufacturers, auto supply stores and do-it-yourself mechanics screamed loudly enough that it didn't pass.

    3. Re:But with cars... by DukeofURL · · Score: 0

      Well I can tell a lot of geeks don't know squat about the automotive world.

  40. Umm, they already do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car

    It's been illegal to do this for over 30 years.

    arresting the person who sold the performace parts.

    IIRC, that is precicely what happened to Berger Chevrolet, a car dealer in Long Island, during the 1970's.

    1. Re:Umm, they already do that. by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

      It's been illegal to do this for over 30 years.

      Not in Pennsylvania, it isn't. Want a 351 in your 302-equipped Mustang? Have a ball. As long as you have the required emissions hardware and pass the emissions test (which is *really* easy with a nice, new engine), have a ball.

      Perfectly, completely, LEGAL.

    2. Re:Umm, they already do that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfectly, completely, LEGAL.

      Yes, you'll pass a tailpipe test. And the probability of getting caught with a 351W in a Mustang is zero, I'll agree.

      But it doesn't make it technically legal. 351's were not an option on any Fox bodied Mustang sold by Ford (that ought to cover me as far as a Saleen Mustang goes). It is still illegal in Pennsylvania, you just won't get caught.

    3. Re:Umm, they already do that. by DukeofURL · · Score: 0

      Where did you get your information that conversions are illegal in all states for thirty years? I will have to disagree unless you have proof, for example a written law.

    4. Re:Umm, they already do that. by CausticPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's been illegal to do this for over 30 years.


      Insurance companies might not like it if you upgrade your engine without telling them, but there's nothing against the law about it, so long as the car is still street legal (passes emissions tests, etc). And of course you'll void your warranty. There are legitimate companies out there that specialize in exactly this, such as Lingenfelter Performance Engineering.

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
  41. Misleading title. should be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Man Jailed for Selling XBox Bios Software

    Not all mod chips are illegal. That one was though since they took MS code, modified it, and resold it.

    1. Re:Misleading title. should be ... by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      If that's true, then why is everyone afraid of Sony? They've singlehandedly killed the PS/2 modchip market under similar pretenses. I think that it's already been decided that the DMCA applies to modchips-- as a device with the POTENTIAL to bypass protection, they're now illegal to possess or sell.

  42. DMCA *is* Abuse by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DMCA has just been applied naturally in this case. The problem is not that the DMCA has been absued, but rather that the DMCA is abuse.

    New technology has not been immune to misguided legislation.

    I thought all these issues had been hashed out earlier with regard to crowbars as burglary tools (crowbars aren't illegal, but breaking into a house is, etc.), the VCR case (people are allowed to make copies for private home viewing), headshops (drug paraphenalia is OK, possession of certain drugs is not OK (sorry, bad example)).

    Those earlier legal precedents were seem largely reasonable and it would have been logical if recently-enacted legislation didn't try to use new technology as a tool to fix what is really a social problem. Now that's an inappropriate use of a tool if ever there was!

    Don't prosecute people making or possessing tools or technologies. Instead, prosecute the people that directly use them to genuinely violate a copyright law (say, by selling illicit copies). Equivalently, they should simply install speed governors on automobiles so no one exceeds the posted limit. Removing your speed governor or selling means to defeat a speed governor would be crimes under the DMCA mindset.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  43. the rule-of-law by chipwich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The scary thing about this is that US laws are now increasingly oppressive to the point that their enforcement in an arbitrary fashion seriously degrades the fabric of society.

    You can't have a rule-of-law which doesn't apply equally to everyone. I mean, I guess we knew that since well before the OJ trial, but here's a case where a seemingly innocuous crime has unreasonably harsh punishment. Kill a man, get off. Endanger corporate intellectual property, be punished eternally.

    But then, I guess even something as simple as speeding could potentially be applied arbitrarily. But we know that cops would never engage in profiling, right?

    History has shown that *all* governments tend to opress their citizens eventually. The US is about to learn that big-time.

  44. USM$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, a proud U.S.M.$. citizen was fucked again.

  45. That's why... by a2800276 · · Score: 1

    You're not going to jail, the guy selling the modchips is. That's 'cause, as the laws are now, those are illegal. You're still free to take a hammer to your X-Box.

  46. There oughta be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It offends my sensibilities that someone should be imprisoned and heavily fined for offending someone's sensibilities. So I want to take action! How do I get laws passed to imprison and fine those who offend MY sensibilities too?

  47. Overreaction by Little+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fair enough, the guy was distributing copyright material. He done bad, he should be slapped on the wrists. But prison? Are American prisons really so spacious that you need to fill them up petty, almost victimless crimes like these?

    Pointless.

    1. Re:Overreaction by dick+johnson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, if you know anything about the American prison system, he'll spend little - if no time in jail.

      Assuming this is his first criminal offense, he'll likely have to serve as little as 1/5 of his sentence. I worked in a court house in NJ where I saw a women, who was a supervisor for the state's child abuse welfare agency and who had pleaded guilty for beating her 5-year-old son to death with a club, sentenced to seven years in jail.

      She actually served 17 months in jail before being released on parole.

      The guy in this case may serve less than 30 days. I think that qualifies as a slap on the wrist.

      -dj

      --
      - dj
    2. Re:Overreaction by Remlik · · Score: 0

      "petty, almost victimless crimes like these?"

      Just because the "victim" is a multi-Billionaire doesn't mean there hasn't been a crime.

      --
      Apple free since 1990!
    3. Re:Overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also a side-effect of the privatisation of prisons - making trivial offenses punishable with jail time is merely maximizing stockholder value! It's in their best interests to lobby hard to make all crimes jailable offenses, and add as many new "crimes" to the books as possible. That's the only way to grow in that market!

      Watch your freedoms disappear as the private sector becomes even more entrenched in criminal justice policy making, as they play both the "victim" and the "punisher" roles until everyone is a "criminal". Or do I mean "customer"?

      They're trying to build a prison
      (for you and me to live in)
      - System of a Down.

    4. Re:Overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the "victim" is a multi-Billionaire doesn't mean there hasn't been a crime

      Yes, but if the billionaire commits a crime, how much hard time will he do? None.

    5. Re:Overreaction by mcgroarty · · Score: 1
      Actually, if you know anything about the American prison system, he'll spend little - if no time in jail.

      Laymen (people without deep pockets or preexisting public sympathy) who are prosecuted in high-profile cases rarely serve less than the full sentence. What you say is true when a case hasn't seen much publicity.

    6. Re:Overreaction by Invisible+Agent · · Score: 1

      Are American prisons really so spacious that you need to fill them up petty, almost victimless crimes like these?

      Hmm. I'm not saying anything, but a lot of people wanted Enron execs jailed for similarly 'victimless' crimes. It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?

      --

      Invisible Agent
      This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
    7. Re:Overreaction by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I'm not saying anything, but a lot of people wanted Enron execs jailed for similarly 'victimless' crimes.

      Hundreds of thousands of people lost huge amounts of money, and thousands of employees lost their jobs, all due to the greed and corruption of Enron officials. How is that 'victimless'?

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    8. Re:Overreaction by Invisible+Agent · · Score: 1

      Right, exactly. And Microsoft is the victim in the previous example.

      When you rip off my copyrighted work, I sure get upset. I have a hard time being mad as MS for feeling the same way.

      --

      Invisible Agent
      This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
    9. Re:Overreaction by drj11 · · Score: 1

      The USA is well documented as having a large prison population (highest percentage of population in prison, and highest fraction of incaraceration). See for example this article I just found using Google.

      You can't vote in prison. That means you can't vote for the man who wants to strike out DMCA or remove the RIAA's powers.

    10. Re:Overreaction by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      When you rip off my copyrighted work, I sure get upset. I have a hard time being mad as MS for feeling the same way.

      The XBOX situation is a little different, don't you think? Say you created a portable MP3 player that ran Linux. Say it only played MP3s. Would you be pissed if someone modified your bootloader to allow playback of Ogg? Because that's all we're dealing with here - modified bios code. Sorry if I have little sympathy for the "victim". The rights of XBOX owners to modify a product they own outweighs any control Microsoft thinks they have over consumers. Microsoft should have no right to dictate how I use my XBOX (hypothetically - I don't, and never will, own an XBOX).

      If the guy was actually distributing pirated games, then I'd be on the other side of the fence.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  48. So buy your modchips from Canada... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at GameGizmo

    Yeah - it's an affiliate link... ;)

  49. Stupid by stevenp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is plain stupid (at least from my European point of view)
    If the law wants to be consistent, then these and these guys should also be arrested as they sell "protection circumventing devices".
    Selling a tool which allows to break the law should not be punished, only breaking the law should be.

    1. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, a gun is a "protection enhancing device."

    2. Re:Stupid by dirk · · Score: 1

      This is plain stupid (at least from my European point of view)
      If the law wants to be consistent, then these [lockpicks.com] and these [colt.com] guys should also be arrested as they sell "protection circumventing devices".
      Selling a tool which allows to break the law should not be punished, only breaking the law should be.


      Actually, selling lockpicks is illegal, unless you are selling them to a qualified individual. It is illegal to sell lockpicks to someone who is not a certified locksmith, a lock manufacturer, a lock distributor, repossessor, car dealer, or car manufacturer (and this site states this on their order form). I agree that a tool that has legitimate uses should very rarely be banned under the law because it has some illegal uses, lockpicks are a tool that mainly have illegal uses and very few legitimate uses.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    3. Re:Stupid by |<amikaze · · Score: 1

      In Canada, it is perfectly legal to sell lockpicks to anybody. Restricting the sale of a thin piece of metal seems pretty rediculous, especially since you could easily make a decent set on your own for very cheap.

      Although, up here, they are a bit less useful. THere's a lot of people who don't even lock their doors.

    4. Re:Stupid by Metaldsa · · Score: 1

      Up there I wouldn't spend my time looting a house. So damn cold in the winter...no wonder the Internet spread so fast.

    5. Re:Stupid by Noren · · Score: 1

      Assuming from context that you are referring to the US, you are mistaken about the laws for the country as a whole. There are a few states (and D.C.) which restrict possession and sale of lockpicks per se, but in most places law enforcement has to prove intent to use them for an illegal purpose for them to be illegal. For more information, see the alt.locksmithing FAQ.

  50. Okay, HERE'S the explanation by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

    People don't seem to understand that this is not a Napster issue, where he's creating a means of piracy. Not at all.

    XBOX mod chips contain illegally modified proprietary data. They contain, specifically, a modified XBOX bios. This is roughly the same thing as selling modified copies of windows. Sure, you can do it on your own, and he's not resposnsible for piracy at all. But he distributing hacked versions of the bios, which is strictly not allowed!

    1. Re:Okay, HERE'S the explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is different than your example. He is selling modified version of "windows" for people that have machines that couldn't run anything but "windows". This "windows" is useless for anyone else that don't have the hardware dongle called "xbox". Every one of these "xbox" already comes with a license to run the unmodified "windows".

  51. In the Typical "I wish I had mod points" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I could Mod this up more.

    Most everyone else seems to have the same quote, "I can do whatever I want with my X-box, it's not a license," but really this conviction wasn't about what you do to your X-box, it's what somone else was selling.

    Frankly if people are going to aruge this they need to adress the very things you're talking about. And say why it's ok for somone to sell Mod chips for the major purpose of pirating.

    Not some cheap "It's my machine I can do what I want!"

  52. Why you lick it by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

    He wasn't charged because of selling circumvention materials. He was charged because the BIOS he was selling was copyrighted material of Microsoft. Did you read up on any of this before posting? This is not about eventual use or any of the nonsense you're talking about. Let me try to break it down more simply for you. Let's say you decide to buy a piece of software at Walmart - some game or something for the PC. You then make a thousand copies of that game and begin selling it to people. You are violating copyright law. That's basically why the guy was arrested. Jesus, RTFA.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  53. Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and "neck".

    'OMG, those guys are HOLDING HANDS!, I hope they don't try redecorating my living room!'.

    Welcome to 2003, moron. You can check your prejudice at the door; it's not needed in this century.

    1. Re:Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Fucking coward. Your words would carry more weight if you actually stood behind them. Actually, that's not true. You're an idiot so it is impossible for your words to carry any more weight.

      Thinking something is wrong, immoral, or just distasteful is not equivalent to prejudice. I think it's wrong, immoral, and distasteful that Bob puts his dick in John's ass. According to you that makes me a prejudiced redneck. I also happen to think that Mike cheating on his wife is wrong, immoral, and distasteful.

      Learn what the words mean before you use them, moron. Your little rant was so gay.

    2. Re:Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, redneck, maybe you should look at yourself before using the word prejudice. Also I liked your use of stereotypes. Keep up the good work, asshole.

    3. Re:Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :Fucking coward.

      Ouch! This kitten's got claws! :Your words would carry more weight if you :actually stood behind them.

      I don't stand behind my words? Huh? :Actually, that's not true. You're an idiot so it :is impossible for your words to carry any more :weight.

      I'm an idiot, yet you can't type a sentence that makes sense. In order to state that I 'don't stand behind my words', you need to show an instance of my not doing so. So, again, huh? :Thinking something is wrong, immoral, or just :distasteful is not equivalent to prejudice.

      'I think niggers kissing is wrong". That is prejudice.
      You are prejudice.
      (that was an ezample, btw) :I think it's wrong, immoral, and distasteful :that Bob puts his dick in John's ass.

      Does Bob make you watch? Does he do it in front of you and make you lick his fingers when he's done? :According to you that makes me a prejudiced :redneck.

      If by 'you', you mean the rest of society, than anyone above a mongoloid's IQ, than yep. :I also happen to think that Mike cheating on his :wife is wrong, immoral, and distasteful.

      Well that's good, since Mike's wife and family are actually being hurt by his actions. Who exactly are Bob and John hurting? :Learn what the words mean before you use them, :moron. Your little rant was so gay.

      Three questions:
      1) Are you from the South?
      2) Have you ever taken at least -one- intro philosophy class in which they provided instruction on how to pose an argument that uses a little thing called 'logic'? Or were you too busy hoping that Rick and Nick don't spend their nights fingerbanging eachother's bungholes?
      3) Have you given your life to Jesus? It always amuses me that the most homophobic individuals are often the most religious, yet they don't seem to realize that their religion teaches to accept -everyone-.

    4. Re:Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a hypocrite. Firstly, "are you from the south"?..... nice generalization. So pot meet Mr. Kettle.

      Then the religous reference "It always amuses me that the most homophobic individuals are often the most religous".... gee what would you say if I said most homosexual individuals often speak with a lisp?

      You lose all credibility when you basically do the things you are criticizing others for. And what if someone hopes that Rick and Nick don't fingerbang each other? How does their hoping "hurt" Rick and Nick?

      There is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance. The ONLY thing required for civilized society is tolerance, nobody has to LIKE what others do.

      On another note, yes, Chrisitanity does teach that we should accept everyone, but not what they do. In fact it's important to remember that Christ says we are ALL bad, not just homosexuals so if Christians are guilty of anything it's not looking at how bad THEY are as well as the things they criticize.

      And finally, it's interesting that you choose Christianity as the religon of "intolerance". Perhaps you like to tell me how Islam and other religons see this practice? The way you single out Christianity betrays the bias you obviously have towards a stereotype you carry about religous southerners.

    5. Re:Parent post brought to you by the words "red" by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Oh, c'mon, aren't you going to post using your user name?

      You still need to look up the word "prejudice".

  54. Blame Bill Clinton. by BigChigger · · Score: 1

    DMCA and it's ilk were passed during Bill "I did not have sex wwith that woman - bomb Bosnia" Clinton

    BC

  55. Re:Land of the Free and Home of the Brave by turgid · · Score: 1

    -1 what? Offtopic? Flamebait? Troll? Why just plain -1 with no explanation? Please enlighten me. American Freedom is in trouble. I'm glad I don't live there.

  56. If I was in charge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This world would be a living nightmare. But a different sort of nightmare.

  57. Mod Chips = copyright infringement by xziz · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't think you can blame them for wanting the software companies that have signed on with them to get money. Sure you're using it for legitimate uses but most people are definitely not.

  58. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Havokmon · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I hear ignorant people say this sometimes and it never fails to surprise me. In their defense they're usually acting out some gradeschool conditioning and are not truly hateful or bigotted people. But holy cow, grow up.

    Oh please. It used to primarily mean 'happy'. Just because you have a different definition than the poster, doesn't call for apologies. If anything it's ignorance on your part, because you can't see past the 'sexual revolutionists' version of the word.

    In the three different states that I grew up in (15 years ago), 'gay' meant 'stupid' - it had nothing to do with sexual orientation - though it may have originated there. Just like 'cool' isn't the opposite of warm, or 'bad' isn't the opposite of good.

    No wonder this country is so fucked up. Someone reads in THEIR VERSION of a definition of a word, and all of a sudden the sky is falling. This isn't Latin, the English language is constantly changing. I suggest you do some research on Kleenex and Spam, and accept the fact that you may lose your definition of the word.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  59. Re:Why did he plead guilty?-BS by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    --Ever heard of Miranda rights?

    "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"

    In criminal cases, money is not a problem. It's in civil cases where you have to empty your wallet.--

    Yes, in theory, but in reality complete B|S. Do you really want a court appointed lawyer to defend you when ther is jail time involved? In most states, court appointed lawyers get paid very little so they are not as willing to spend time defending you.

  60. Clarification by steronz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The confusion over this issue has been bothering me ever since the story broke several months ago.

    XBOX mod chips ARE NOT ILLEGAL! They never have been! I just bought one last week. The mod chip is nothing more than a regular PC bios chip with some circuitry to override the on-board bios. The bios that I downloaded from IRC and flashed to my mod chip IS illegal. It's just a slightly modified version of the COPYRIGHTED xbox bios. Now, you can argue about the legality of copyright law, but this has nothing to do with the DMCA.

    Moving onto the case in question, this guy was selling mod chips with the modified (illegal) bios already installed. Big mistake. If he had been selling blank modchips like the rest of the world, he would have been fine.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go play my pirated copy of DOA: Beach Volleyball...

    1. Re:Clarification by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
      XBOX mod chips ARE NOT ILLEGAL!


      I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd say that finding someone guilty and putting him in jail, pretty much says that XBOX Modchips are illegal.

    2. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you G.B. from Bellevue?

      If so, you might want to throw that modified xbox in the incinerator, as the feds are on their way right now.

  61. Offtopic?? Mods on crack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is the parent offtopic??

  62. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DMCA is abuse.

  63. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the three different states that I grew up in (15 years ago), 'gay' meant 'stupid' - it had nothing to do with sexual orientation"

    Yes you dumb fuck, it means stupid to stupid, bigotted people. So when people call a stupid law or a fat person "american-style", you don't find that offensive? Get a life, loser.

  64. What would be the legal situation if they sold... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...blank CPLDs on a suitable board and let people find the VHDL for themselves on the web? Would that be legal? I think it's the way to go.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  65. (+1000000, amazingly insightful) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, no shit Sherlock!!

  66. Solution for XBOX Linux users? by AtomicX · · Score: 1

    Surely someone should create a modchip which only allows users to run specified programs ... OR, one which stops working if an MS signed executable is found on the disc, so it can't be used to play games with.

    Then they would have somewhere to stand in court.

  67. Get a computer for computer uses... by Justin205 · · Score: 1

    ... and a GameCube or PlayStation2 for games. Very simple. Just don't get something that is a computer, but only runs some types of software.

    --
    "Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
  68. OT:The purpose of jails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The purpose of jails is to deter the marginal criminal from committing crimes, and keeping the law abiding in line, not the punishment of the dangerous criminals.

    The more dangerous a criminal you are, the less of a punishment prison actually is. Remember the movie "Office Space," and the reference to "Federal-pound-you-in-the-ass" prison? Who is likely to be the pounder and who is likely to be the poundee? The marginal, nonviolent criminal or the very big and very violent criminal?

    Look at one of the most notoroious serial killers ever: Richard Speck. He was caught on videotape doing coke and having sex with his fellow inmate lover. The most telling quote in the video was "If they knew what a good time I was having, they'd let me go." Prison was actually a REWARD for him.

  69. ABUSE of Mod Chips = copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy was selling modchips, not using them to play pirated games. Yes, modchips can be used to violate copyright. They can also be used to extend Xbox in order to run Linux, which is a LEGITIMATE use of one's private property (the Xbox unit).

    Let's say I buy a .357 Magnum and put a slug in your ass. Are you going to sue Smith & Wesson, or are you going to press charges against *me* for shooting you?

  70. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by barryfandango · · Score: 1

    Havokmon,

    I see what you're saying and i agree that a)gay is a multi-definition word, and that b)we spend too much time worrying about language and whether it will offend people.

    But i know that when i went to gradeschool, calling somebody gay was a serious insult, and you were suggesting that they were a homosexual (although exactly what that meant wasn't too clear at the time.) Unfortunately for some people that word sticks in their vocabulary, and when they use it interchangably with "stupid" they are absolutely using it in the homosexual sense although they may not be thinking about it. I didn't have a problem with this either until i used the word when i was standing next to a friend of mine who happens to be gay, and realized how much i had hurt his feelings.

    Try arguing that you use the word "nigger" to mean idiot (i actually know people like this) and that you just mean "idiot," with no offense to black people. You could say that "it has nothing to do with race, although it may have originated there." If I'm a black person standing next to you when you say it, will this fact make me feel better?

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
  71. Taking it a little bit too far??? by uwbbjai · · Score: 1

    Tomorrow, we'll be reading /. posts about Bestbuy being sued for selling overclocking kits, and Stables sued for selling 3rd Party Printer replacement cartridges.

  72. Pentagon's take on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Saddam could not be proved to have any "weapons of mass destruction" - but a huge stockpile of modchips were found in a Bagdad suburb.

    "This justifies the entire war", a spokesman says.

  73. Legitimate use of DMCA by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the issue is that the mod chips circumvent copy protection on the x-box, which is illegal.

    I'm fairly sure that that's correct. Some people are claiming that the issue is the inclusion of a BIOS (and hence copyright infringement), but I'm quite certain that this is not the case. There are existing copyright laws to cover this, and not only is the DMCA not required to prosecute someone infringing copyright, it really doesn't *cover* it. The DMCA specifically goes after people screwing with copy protection mechanisms.

    This is hardly "abuse" of the DMCA, as the story claims. Now, you may not *like* the DMCA. Lord knows, I think it's one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation ever passed ("it's more *convenient* to prosecute the few smart engineers designing tools that can be used to bypass copy protection mechanisms than the people actually using them to commit a crime, so those engineers should be prosecuted? Meh!"), but this really is the DMCA being used as it was intended. It's not misuse of the DMCA at all.

    1. Re:Legitimate use of DMCA by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      I believe the idea here is that any use of the DMCA is a misuse/abuse. Semantically inclined people can argue over this one; I won't.

    2. Re:Legitimate use of DMCA by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "This is hardly "abuse" of the DMCA, as the story claims. Now, you may not *like* the DMCA. Lord knows, I think it's one of the most disgusting pieces of legislation ever passed ("it's more *convenient* to prosecute the few smart engineers designing tools that can be used to bypass copy protection mechanisms than the people actually using them to commit a crime, so those engineers should be prosecuted? Meh!"), but this really is the DMCA being used as it was intended. It's not misuse of the DMCA at all."

      The Slashdot Community really needs to learn to pick their battles. Right now, names like "DMCA", "RIAA", and "Microsoft" cause this knee-jerk reaction that just doesn't carry any weight.

      "Oh, that's Slashdot. They hate anything that has to do with the DMCA. Don't expect informed reactions from them."

      Would you listen to anybody if you had that opinion about them?

    3. Re:Legitimate use of DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand what the DMCA is.
      The DMCA supersedes and REPLACES the US Copyright law that existed prior to it.

      The "existing copyright laws" that you refer to, only exist to the extent that they are included in the DMCA.

      The DMCA is not a law "in addition to" copyright law, it IS US copyright law.

    4. Re:Legitimate use of DMCA by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      All the old laws are still valid, they were never replaced. The DMCA simply augments them with "whatever technical restrictions the copyright holders can dream up".

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  74. Re:DMCA, Harsh Sentence, Other Issues Aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I damn well know hell hasn't frozen over.

  75. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about when black people refer to each other as "nigger"? That's not offensive.

  76. Ethical Retribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Revenge, however you want to put it.

    What is needed is an organized "army" of individuals willing to "return fire" when something like this happens. Kind of like NATO is supposed to do - whenever a member nation is attacked, all of NATO is supposed to respond to protect their member. When one of us is attacked there needs to be response - organized, continuous response until the attacker either relents or is made irrelevent (ie shows up here).

    I have an idea, Slashcourt. We can set up our own trial system (fair, of course), give the accusers the right to make their case, give the accused the right to defend themselves, all online of course.

    Sitting back and writing a letter of protest is just going to get them laughing at your expense. It's time to kick it up a notch and return with something that has teeth.

    Everyone needs to read The Art of War. Then, find a way to fight back. There are plenty of ways to fight back which can destroy an individual and really damage a corporation, without breaking any laws. Use them on the enemy. Take a look here for some methods that cults use to silence people.

    I'm not making any judgment as to whether or not what the guy did was illegal or immoral. My only judgment is for the harshness of his penalty in relation to what he did

    Find the person or persons involved with making the penalty so harsh. Take out retribution on them. Be sure they know what it's for.

  77. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
    I've already posted one reply to this argument so why not another?
    It used to primarily mean 'happy'. Just because you have a different definition than the poster, doesn't call for apologies.
    And the word "faggot" used to mean "a bundle of sticks." Try using it with a general audience and have them not think you're using a derrogatory term for homosexuals. YOUR definition of a word might be different, but when choosing your words, you have to take into account the fact that others define words differently, and therefore assume that the most common definition is the way it will be interpreted. MOST people interpret "gay" to mean homosexual. In calling something stupid "gay," you're implying that homosexuality is a negative thing, whether you want to admit it or not. That's why people get offended.

    I realize it's slang, but that doesn't mean that it's harmless. The ever contentious N word is slang for a black person, but it's also extremely offensive to most black people, or most anyone else for that matter. In the same book, "gay" when used in a derrogatory manner is offensive to many people, so don't act surprised when people get offended or dismiss you as ignorant for using it in such a way. I'd also like to point out the maturity of the original poster in the fact that they admitted that the word choice was poor, rather than go off on a rant about "no wonder this country is so fucked up." The reason this country is so fucked up is because people don't take the time to be considerate of others. Think about that.
  78. I Call BS by GeckoX · · Score: 1
    Manufacturers have the right to dicated how there products get used if they want to.


    This is total horseshit man. It has been proven in court time and time again that once you buy something, it's yours to do with as you please. Please notice that I said buy and not license. Licensing is the current gray area, but has absolutely NO bearing on the outright purchase of a physical thing.

    Look at it this way, regardless of whether it's legal or not to make copies of CDs, once you purchase one, you can do whatever the fuck you want with the physical media. Make a coaster, make a frisbee whatever, it's yours.

    Can you not see how this lawsuit sets a horrible and totally unprecedented example? Come now, open your eyes and realize when your rights are being pissed on.

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:I Call BS by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      For right or wrong manufactuers have the right to set limits on the goods they sell. They must balance there own interets verses possible negative effects on sales. You made an agreement with the manufacturer when you purchased it to play by there rules. If you don't want to, then don't buy it.

      If Microsoft, Sony, whoever wants to make these kinds of restrictions, that's there right. I will decide if it works for me, and if it dosn't, I won't buy.

      Plan and simple. There is no monopoly on game concoles.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    2. Re:I Call BS by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      For right or wrong manufactuers have the right to set limits on the goods they sell. They must balance there own interets verses possible negative effects on sales. You made an agreement with the manufacturer when you purchased it to play by there rules. If you don't want to, then don't buy it.

      Please show me the document that I signed to this affect. In no way have I made any sort of agreement, verbal, written, or otherwise when I purchased a physical product. If I buy a DVD player, I have not, in any way, given my consent to any sort of agreement that I won't disable the Region Encoding. To assume otherwise is silly. Along the same lines, the manufacturer of the product cannot be held responsible for my actions, unless it is shown that he was negligent.

      If Microsoft, Sony, whoever wants to make these kinds of restrictions, that's there right. I will decide if it works for me, and if it dosn't, I won't buy.

      Microsoft, maybe, if I am buying a license, then I am agreeing to certain terms. If I buy an XBox, then I am buying a physical product, not a license. Though there could be a license attached to the game/BIOS, etc. Though these must be clearly defined.
      Sony, not so likely, they tend to sell physical products as well, with no agreement what-so-ever with me about how I use the product. Again, BIOS etc. are covered by copyright law, but this is a wholy different can of worms.
      Now, as for the current case at hand, this guy is probably violating copyright laws, selling copies of the XBox BIOS, in whole or part is such a violation. But that should be more than enough, by itself, we don't need this DMCA crap. I would really hope that the EFF, EPIC, or someother large group picks this up and uses it as a platform to fight the DMCA on, though I doubt it.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    3. Re:I Call BS by be-fan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see where I signed the damn contract. When I buy an X-Box, the only implicit contract I'm making is that I get the plastic and silicon in it, and I give them $200. That's it. That's the standard definition of "buying" something. If Microsoft want's to impose further restrictions on the purchase, they should have you sign a contract when you buy the thing. When you buy a house, for example, you are restricted from doing certain things to it. All of this is in the contract you sign when you purchase it. If Microsoft thinks that signing a contract over such a relatively small purchase is too much trouble for consumers, then it should realize that getting a boatload of restrictions along with such a relatively small purchase is also too much trouble for consumers. If this "implicit contract" shit becomes any worse, imagine the possibilities. Next thing you know we'll have lemonade stands where the implicit contract states that the only thing you can do with the lemonade is pour it down your pants...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:I Call BS by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      For right or wrong manufactuers have the right to set limits on the goods they sell.

      They most certainly do not, not post-sale limits, anyway. They have the right to try and prevent it by making it harder to break those limits in hardware or software, but they do not have the right to dictate post-sale terms unless I sign something. Even the DMCA doesn't allow that, but it does have some workarounds that achieve the same results.

  79. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    I've posted a couple of comments in this thread in response to people that jumped up not understanding why people were offended at the initial comment. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that you're mature enough to recognize your error and appologize for it. It's a shame we don't see more people like you here on /. :)

  80. Non-infringing uses of modchips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    After buying the third copy of Spyro the Dragon for my children, I modded my Playstation. What annoys me the most is that they market these games for children, but then put them on an easily scratched, fragile media. We all know how careful children are with their possessions.

    I tried putting the cds out of their reach, but they learned to climb or stand on chairs to get to them. Now I just make a backup of the games I have bought and let them have at it. Scratch? No big deal, I will have you a new one in 5 minutes.

  81. How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by dmarx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How, exactly, are Microsoft's rights violated by someone modding their X-Box to play games that have not yet been, and may never be, released in their country?
    Is Microsoft's right to life being violated? No.
    Is Microsoft's right to liberty being violated? No.
    Is Microsoft's right to property being violated? No.
    So now we must ask why, in the so-called "land of the free", a man must have his life ruined, and spend five months getting his shit packed, for "dareing" to sell devices that allow people to modify hardware that they bought and paid for?!

    --
    "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
    1. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by TotallyUseless · · Score: 1

      His life is being ruined because he is an idiot, plain and simple. He sold a chip which contained modified *MS owned* code, and he sold them from a site who's entire reason for existence is to help people pirate games. This guy had 2 strikes against him before he even sold a single chip. Now, because of his stupidity, the courts have a precedent for shutting down modchip companies. Thanks to Mr Kewl Warez Dude ISOnews Boy, we may see other chip makers, who sell *blank* chips that are technically legal (unlike his), getting shut down as well.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    2. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. Under this ruling, what stops automobile manufacturers from placing chips in their parts. Soon only authorized dealers will be allowed to sell and install simply things such as air filters, and any third party who attempts to circumvent this will be jailed. And what incentive will automobile manufactures have to create quality products if repairing them becomes a huge cash cow?

      Heck the exact same thing is currently happening with printer inks. Under the DMCA it's technically illegal to sell third party inks and Lexmark is suing manufacturers as such. Once again, it's the consumer getting screwed.

      Open up your eyes and look beyond the facts of this case and realize you're about to lose important rights. But then again, you may be one of those sheep I mentioned earlier who simply doesn't care.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    3. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by TotallyUseless · · Score: 1

      I didn't make things clear about my personal view on the DMCA. I think it is a horrible law, I think it needs to be repealed. The thing is, until the law is repealed or something, our views on it are irrelevant. It is still the law. Now, since it is currently still the law, then people like modchip makers have to be very careful how they handle things. They shouldn't include MS copyright code on the chips, and they sure as hell shouldnt sell the chips from a warez site!

      This guy did not think ahead one bit though. As a result, he is going to jail, and now MS has a bit more leverage for pursuing other modchip makers, even legitimate ones.

      I never meant to imply the DMCA is a good law, it isn't. But while it is still law, people like modchip makers have to play a bit of a cat & mouse game with people like MS. They have to lay low, and not flaunt obvious violations. This guy's idea of a cat and mouse game is walking up to the cat's food bowl and taking a crap in it. Of course the cat is going to notice, and of course it is going to come after you with all claws bared. The problem now is, since the cat's food bowl was crapped in, it may not be satisfied with munching on just the one mouse. It might decide to take out the rest of the mice in revenge or a preemptive strike.

      To sum up, yes the DMCA is bad, very bad. But while it is still law, there is a subtle game that needs to be played, for everyone's sake, and this guy didn't even bother to read the rules.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    4. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad that you're against the DMCA, but I'm bothered by this quote:

      "The thing is, until the law is repealed or something, our views on it are irrelevant."

      Our views ARE important and are NOT irrelevant. And most importantly the DMCA will never be repealed if we stop expressing our views.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    5. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by TotallyUseless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Argh, you are correct. using the word irrelevant was a bad choice. Yes our views are important, and yes we need to express them. I just think this guy really went about it in the wrong way, possibly to the detriment of the rest of the community. This has been the main point im trying to get across.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    6. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by AintTooProudToBeg · · Score: 1

      I thought these mod chips are used to download games off the internet so you don't have to pay for them.

    7. Re:How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? by dmarx · · Score: 1

      They are also used to play games that are not released in one's country. For example, games are often released in Japan before they are released in the US. With a mod chip, one can import the games from Japan and play them on US consoles.

      --
      "Do I dare disturb the universe?"
  82. Sure by lazyl · · Score: 1

    You can buy a mod chip and install it. That's not illegal. Selling mod chips is illegal.

    --
    Aw crap, ninjas!
  83. depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy in this case may serve less than 30 days. I think that qualifies as a slap on the wrist.

    Depends on if all these stories of prison rape in US prisons are true...

  84. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Havokmon · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Try arguing that you use the word "nigger" to mean idiot (i actually know people like this) and that you just mean "idiot," with no offense to black people. You could say that "it has nothing to do with race, although it may have originated there." If I'm a black person standing next to you when you say it, will this fact make me feel better?

    Except it depends on the person hearing it. There's so much of a double standard because of the fear of offending people. 'nigger' is a bad example, IMHO. It's not used universally (nationally, or racially) to mean idiot. With 'gay', OTOH, I've had experiences with those of all races and locales using it as 'stupid'.

    If I say, 'Hey Bro', and you don't like me, would you be offended? Probably. It depends on the person.

    I'm not touchy feely, I could really care less if you don't like a certain word that I use. Slang shouldn't offend anyone, unless it's directed at them. If it's not, they're just too sensitive in the first place.

    It reminds me of my German class in High School, some girl said something about having something on her 'bacca' (cheek). The teacher started cracking up. Apparently, the way the girl used the word, it meant butt-cheek.

    My point is, when words are taken too literally (and ESPECIALLY out of context) we run into problems. (Hey, am I back on topic now? :)

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  85. WRONG! by GeckoX · · Score: 1

    He wasn't selling copies of software to people that don't own that software, he was selling the MS XBox BIOS to people that already owned a license for said BIOS, thus not selling them a bios at all.

    He was really just selling mod chips that contained software they had already purchased.

    Now, MAYBE, you'd have a point if they caught the guy selling his mod chips to someone that had never bought an XBox in the first place, thus didn't already own the BIOS, but they didn't because who the fuck would buy a mod chip if they didn't have an XBox to use it in?

    Think of it this way: How much does a legitimate copy of WindowsXP cost? Wrong. About $10. Yes, the _license_ is much more, but anyone can purchase and own a copy for dirt cheap...just not allowed to use it until you purchase the license. So, what's wrong with him selling these chips with the bios on them when there is absolutely NO way to use it without actually purchasing an XBox, which includes a valid license for said BIOS.

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:WRONG! by dirk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except he still has no right to sell the BIOS. It is illegal for me to copy a Windows XP Cd and sell them, even if I only sell them to people who already own Windows XP. I do not own the material on the CD, and I have no legal rights to redistribute it. This is true especially since he had changed the BIOS (since if he was selling an exact copy of the BIOS it would work exactly as the current X-Box chip and be useless as a mod chip). He took MS's intellectual property (the BIOS), modified it, and was selling his modified version. He had no redistribution rights to the BIOS, much less rights to modify and redistribute it.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    2. Re:WRONG! by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      I concur. I was going to issue a reply to that kid's nonsense but you've stated the argument quite eloquently.

      --
      I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  86. BOYCOTT X-BOX! by dragontooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I cannot believe this is real. I mean really a guy got JAIL TIME and a CRIMINAL RECORD for selling these devices which do not even fall under the DMCA. The mod chips do not let people bypass copywriten materials and now the guy has 5 months in the pokey with a big biker rommate named Florence.

    What THE FUCK is going on here? I am so glad I love in Canada. Is the U.S. really turning into the Orwellian state that it seems to be? I have always considered moving to the States. My wife and I were discussing this a few months back. Forget it. Just goes to show that money is power. I guess the RIAA will be running your elections pretty soon. Arnold Swartzenegger for President anyone?

    How do these things get so far? Well its time to start hitting them where it hurts. I was going to go buy an X-Box today. Well fuck that. You hear me Microsoft you dirty slimey bastards? You will never, ever get one flat dime out of me EVER again. Mark my words. You won't have a few hundred of my dollars to put poor saps like this in jail.

    See you in hell!

    --
    "Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and they still think its funny." - Mr. Boffo
    1. Re:BOYCOTT X-BOX! by BastardSonOfRave · · Score: 1

      Boycotting the X-box means no more Halo...fuck that. Addicted...still.

    2. Re:BOYCOTT X-BOX! by hawkeyeMI · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, buy the xbox, and either don't buy any games, or mod it and copy a bunch. Microsoft loses large amounts of money on every xbox sold, which they recoup in game licensing fees.

      --
      Error 404 - Sig Not Found
    3. Re:BOYCOTT X-BOX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know Arnold can sing, but neither do any of the "artists". May be I am mixing it up with his on screen heroic image, but I think Arnold would still be a better president.

    4. Re:BOYCOTT X-BOX! by dragontooth · · Score: 1

      Thanks guys I appreciate your replies. It just makes me sooo mad. Had a hit and run near my house a while back. Killed some people and the asshole got 3 months with time served. How is this fair? Poor guy selling mod chips lands in jail. I still cannot believe it for real.

      --
      "Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Cry, and they still think its funny." - Mr. Boffo
  87. Little problem... by GeckoX · · Score: 0

    The baseball bat analogy is just fine.

    Guns are meant to kill, yet killing is illegal, yet we sell them anyways knowing that they may be used to kill.

    See my point?

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:Little problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      killing a good number of species of furry little animals isn't illegal; and when properly lisenced, you have an even wider selection of furry little bastards you can kill.

    2. Re:Little problem... by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Giving up mod points here.

      Killing is not blanketly illegal. Legal instances include self-defense, protecting an innocent, ensuring the security of dangerous property, &c. the legal concept here is ``justifiable homicide'' among others.

      Moreover, guns have uses beyond just killing people (justified or not), hunting, punching holes in targets, collections which are didactic in nature &c.

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Little problem... by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Ah, you figured it out all on your own ;)
      Multi-use...go figure!

      --
      No Comment.
  88. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Havokmon · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    And the word "faggot" used to mean "a bundle of sticks."

    Or, if you're Canadian, 'fag' can be a cigarette. If you're gay, you might want to stay out of Canada, unless you want to risk being offended.

    In the same book, "gay" when used in a derrogatory manner is offensive to many people, so don't act surprised when people get offended or dismiss you as ignorant for using it in such a way.

    Exactly. You've taken it out of context, and applied what you perceive as the 'popular' definition of the word by itself. IMHO, that's the problem, and is the definition of ignorance. The 'N' word, as you call it, is used regularly in a positive manner, but still with racial prejudice. It's not the same.

    I'd also like to point out the maturity of the original poster in the fact that they admitted that the word choice was poor, rather than go off on a rant about "no wonder this country is so fucked up."

    OR, backing down to your point of view is favorable to you ;)

    The reason this country is so fucked up is because people don't take the time to be considerate of others. Think about that.

    Heh, you wouldn't HAVE to consider all the local definition of words you used, if everyone else wasn't so ignorant about those other definitions, and taking the word out of context, right?

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  89. It'll be soo be illegal to fix your own car... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    I predict that within 10 years it'll be illegal to fix your own car. Heck, it'll be worse than that. Only those authorized by the manufacturer will be allowed to make the repair. The car repair business will become a cash cow for the automobile industry. Which of course will kill any incentive to make quality automobiles. And of course this will apply to more than that it will apply to every manufactured item we buy.

    And on a related note, there was an incident about a year ago where someone tried to sell a Segway on Ebay. The company Segway got involved and demanded it be removed. It cited that the product contained intellectual property that could not be resold.

    So not only will we be unable to repair the stuff we buy, we won't even really own it. In about ten years (or less) garage sales and classified ads will become the new Napster and will be outlawed. And like the ignorant sheep we Americans are, we'll wholeheartedly agree because we'll accept the mantra, if it's bad for business, it's bad for us.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  90. You don't own what you buy by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    Sooner or later the DMCA will creep into other facets of life...

    Cars, light fixtures, etc.

    Why, light bulbs could be CHIPPED to make them fail within a certain time period... Fixtures could REFUSE to light the light if you don't use the light bulb of the manufacturer...

    Your car could refuse to run on anything but GM Gas -tm, or refuse to start unless the tires have the manufacturer's chips in them.

    The potential for abuse is LIMITLESS.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  91. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    The ever contentious N word is slang for a black person,

    That's ANOTHER thing I have a problem with. You can't say 'nigger' as part of a discussion about 'words' because you're afraid of offending someone?

    That's fucking gay. :P

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  92. Where do you buy things? by GeckoX · · Score: 1, Troll

    You sir, are a fuckwit.

    You don't eat your cheerios in the living room do you? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    You won't play Brittney Spears on this CD Player will you? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    You won't tint the windows on this car will you? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    You won't wear that shirt without tucking it in will you? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    You won't use that microwave to blow up eggs? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    You won't drink that whole case of beer tonight will you? Because we say you aren't allowed to.

    Really dude, quit watering down my rights as a consumer.

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:Where do you buy things? by MhzJnky · · Score: 1

      And the microwave manufacturer wouldn't say that, neither would Brittany Spears or the Cheerio's people. Why, cause they don't care and it would hurt sales. However, Microsoft cares, and they feel it will hurt sales of their games if they allow it. So they are exercising there rights. That's all.

      As for everyone else, yes you agreed to a contract. It states quite clearly that by purchasing and using the product (in this case an Xbox) you agree to follow their licensing agreement. The licensing agreement states quite clearly that you agree not to reverse engineer or modify the product in anyway.

      When you mod your xbox you are violating that agreement.

      --


      "Failure is not an option, it's part of the standard package"
    2. Re:Where do you buy things? by radish · · Score: 1

      Crap.

      Please show me where the licensing agreement is on the Xbox. I admit I don't have one, but I have a NGC and a PS2, and I'm pretty damn sure I didn't sign anything, or see any EULA or shrinkwrap license on it when I got it out the box. Microsoft own the copyright on the BIOS code, and are entitled to prevent you copying or modifying that. They also have the DMCA to fall back on to stop you trying to disable copy protection systems. But if I want to paint it yellow? That's my right. If I want to install a mod chip which doesn't contain any of their IP and doesn't disable the copy protect? That's also my right.

      Physical purchases are not subject to usage restrictions, period, point of law. If I buy a car, the manufacturers HAVE NO RIGHT IN LAW to tell me what I can or can't do with that car. Whether you think they have a right but are simply not exercising it is irrelevant - they DON'T.

      Go read a law book then come back.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Where do you buy things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha. If Microsoft decides to enter the market with a loss-leader and people decide to do what they want to with it, this is soley Microsoft's fault. If they want to 'protect' their revenue stream then they should create one that creates profit from the sale of hardware.

      Shrink-wrap licenses are not legally binding. They have never been decided to be binding in any court of law. The only legs that Microsoft has to stand on is good-ol copyright infringment, and that's good enough. They can use copyright infringement to stop people from redistributing their BIOS code.

      Their agreement is *meaningless*. Let me say it again, with HTML. MEANINGLESS. As a consumer I can use my XBox as a doorstop, a paperweight, a fishtank, a gaming console or a Linux box, so long as I do not violate their copyright. I didn't sign a contract, and even if I did, certain rights cannot be taken from me. This includes reverse-engineering.

      Nintendo, for as long as I've owned their stuff, has put a little blurb in every manual they've printed, stating reverse engineering is illegal, emulation is wrong, etc etc. Please tell me just how many companies the big N has taken out with these little false blurbs in their manuals?

      Right, fucking ZERO.

      When you mod your xbox you are violating an agreement that only applies to doing business with MS. They will deny you warranty. They will deny you access to XBox Live. But they cannot stop me from doing what I want to do with the things I bought.

      So, GO THE FUCK HOME YOU IGNORANT FUCKWAD.

      Thank you.

    4. Re:Where do you buy things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      This is incorrect, and goes against doctrine of first sale.

      When you buy an Xbox, you own an Xbox. You can do whatever the hell you like with that hardware so long as it falls within the law. Microsoft has no say in the matter.

      You are most certainly NOT agreeing to a contract.

      Microsoft most definitely does not have any right to dictate to owners of Microsoft hardware how it is used.

      I'm sure you'll keep arguing that they do. You're wrong.

    5. Re:Where do you buy things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn on the Xbox without a DVD in there and go into Settings. There should be an About area that has a huge EULA where it talks about license agreements and the rights you have to owning the console from the hardware to software.

      Why don't you do more research before you troll?

  93. Like so many other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only in America.

    No democracy would do stuff like this.

  94. Re:Perhaps they thought isonews = hacking? by Anita+Coney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're missing the point. With this ruling, what stops GM from making it illegal for you (or any third party) to change your car's oil filter or tires?

    What stops Dell from making it illegal to install a new power supply and motherboard to your old Dell computer?

    A long time ago I had a guitar amp which I modified by placing a capacitor in it which made it distort better. Should that be illegal too? Under this ruling, it could be.

    It doesn't matter if we have a good reason to muck around with the stuff we buy, what matters is that we should have a right to do so.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  95. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
    Or, if you're Canadian, 'fag' can be a cigarette. If you're gay, you might want to stay out of Canada, unless you want to risk being offended.
    I had actually considered including that definition in my original post. It's a common slang over in britain as well from what I'm told. The point remains however, just because a word has many meanings doesn't mean your meaning is the only one.
    The 'N' word, as you call it, is used regularly in a positive manner, but still with racial prejudice. It's not the same.
    I'd like to know how it can be used in a positive light. It's used a lot in an almost interjectional sense, kind of like "holmes" or "esse" in the latin community, but I wouldn't really consider that a "positive manner." And this is probably more directly related to the matter at hand in all reality. It's a word that can be used in a way that's not meant to be offensive, but outside of the younger, black community it's still an extremely volatile word to use. If you want a specific case, Rosa Parks took offense to Outkast's use of that word in a song that talked about her. For the group that the slang usage is common, it was no big deal, but for those who come from outside that culture, it's a huge deal.
    OR, backing down to your point of view is favorable to you ;)
    I don't see how realizing you offended someone's sensibilities is a bad thing. Would it be wrong to appologize for calling you a "stupid cunt" if I realized in hindsight it wasn't a very smart thing to say? :)
    Heh, you wouldn't HAVE to consider all the local definition of words you used, if everyone else wasn't so ignorant about those other definitions, and taking the word out of context, right?
    I think this is the issue of debate, really. Common usage is really a fairly subjective matter. It really comes down to a matter of audience, as before. Had the original poster been talking to a group of his friends that were used to the word in that manner, it wouldn't have been an issue. The reason it became an issue is due to the fact that he was speaking to a much larger audience, and in that audience, there are people who take issue with this usage. The "stupid" definition of the word "gay" almost inarguably stemmed from homosexuality being considered a "bad" thing, and people who don't share that viewpoint find that usage of the word offensive. While I'm personally familiar with "gay" being used to mean "stupid," what about my 60 year old father? He's familiar with the word in the sense of homosexuality, but most likely not in the sense of calling something "stupid." The general population consists of more than the under 30 crowd. My point is that you can use whatever wording you want, and it's really not my problem. However, if you want people to listen to you and actually consider your arguments, you have to make them in a way that doesn't offend since as soon as you offend someone, they'll likely shut you off.
  96. Wake up! by Yogurtu · · Score: 1
    All this would not happen if consumers rejected all this crap. If the EULA asks you to drop your pants, why do you buy the product? In fact, what people should do is actively boycott these things, and also tell their friends why they should too, and to spread the voice. You probably wouldn't have to do it for very long, you know; if after a couple million dollars in advertising the product stays in the shelves, you'll see the company try some other things first, but eventually(you have to be strong) capitulate. The consumers these companies so despise can strangle them if only they woke up.


    Wake up.

    1. Re:Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) We often can't see the EULA until AFTER we've bought the software, taken it home, and opened the wrappers.

      2) We can't return the software if we've opened the wrappers.

      3) Most people can't even comprehend that they should treat software any differently than anything else they go to a store and buy, much less wrap their brains around the severe legalese used in EULAs.

  97. Suprised nobody mentioned this yet. by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia you don't mod the X-Box.

    The X-Box mods you!

    --
    >
  98. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    lol yeah, I know. It's a little nit-picky, but when I'm trying to make a point about attempting to avoid using words that may offend people, I think of it as a hair on the hypocritical side to go about using that language. Really, it depends on whether I think it's nessecary to make my point. If I need to actually say the word to make the point clear, I say it. If the point can be made just as clearly without it, I don't. Yeah, I'm weird like that. :)

  99. Yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too worried about how politically correct it was to use the word "gay" to mean stupid, until I heard my gay friend using it in that way.

    I took that to mean it's okay.

  100. nope by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2, Informative
    Nope, our prisons are pretty damn full. It was just the other day that I saw an article in a newspaper saying that for the first time, we now officially have over 2 Million people in prison in the U.S. That's nearly 1% of the population. While I certainly like and support my country, it needs some serious work in many areas.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:nope by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

      1% is still very much within the human race error margin. 50% of people i meet are stupid jerks, doesn't surprise me that 1% are criminals.

      --
      Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
    2. Re:nope by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      I agree about 50% being jerks, same experience here. I think 1% in prison seems like to much though, at least considering that so many people are in for petty crimes like smoking dope. We really don't need to put people who infringe copyright in prison, IMO. Or maybe we should, Microsoft committed some serious copyright violations while starting up :)

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  101. Clinton couldn't have stopped the DMCA by yerricde · · Score: 2, Informative

    the DMCA passed under Clinton's watch

    Clinton still could not have prevented the DMCA from becoming law because it passed both houses by "unanimous consent", that is, a voice vote. A voice vote implies at least 80.1 percent support for a bill (20 percent of a house can force a full roll-call vote in that house); only 66.7 percent is needed to override the President's veto.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  102. Re:Hang on a second... You're wrong!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're wrong, the chip he was selling (Enigmah) was the *ONLY* modchip that does NOT contain MS Bios code ! It's basically a chip doing on-the-fly patching of a few bytes in the bios


    So the problem is not here!

  103. Typical government hypocrisy by GothChip · · Score: 0

    The government are happy to jail someone who sells a piece of kit that allows people to copy games, whilst trying to pass laws that protect gun manufacturers from being sued if their guns are used in a crime.

    Nice to see some consistency and sense of perspective there.

    1. Re:Typical government hypocrisy by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how the gun laws are relevant. Maybe I'm just too much into personal reasonability.

      Surely if someone intentionally drove a GM car into someone and killed him, GM could never successfully be sued. The person who drove the car was the proximate, superceding, and intervening cause of the death.

      If that is true, why should gun manufacturers be held liable for the same act?

      I'm not some pro-gun nut. I've never owned a gun and never will, I just don't see the connection here.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    2. Re:Typical government hypocrisy by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Let me help you with the connection.

      IF GM can't really be held responsible for a car muder crime, and you (and I) agree that the gun manufacturer is not responible for a shooting murder crime, then how is it that a man selling modchips can be responsible for a piracy crime?

      You could argue you that intent of the chip is for piracy 99% of the time, but the intent of a hangun is killing 100% of the time, so that doesn't pan out.

    3. Re:Typical government hypocrisy by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1

      "You could argue you that intent of the chip is for piracy 99% of the time, but the intent of a hangun is killing 100% of the time, so that doesn't pan out."

      How very untrue. I've multiple handguns, rifles and shotguns that have never fired on living things.

      I bought my Ruger 10-22 for competitive target shooting. I picked up my Winchester 16 gauge for my wife to skeet shoot with. I have a .45 for shooting bowling pins. I've a few handguns that I only have because they remind me of my grandfather I could go on about the shotguns for trap, rifles for long and short range target, or the smokepoll for civil war reenactments.

      The only gun I purchased for "killing" is a Winchester .308 Stealth for deer hunting and I feed my family with that.

    4. Re:Typical government hypocrisy by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the DMCA is bad law, very bad law. It certainly should be repealed.

      Merely because the DMCA is bad law and allows for prison for mod sales is no reason to hold gun manufacturers liable for murders. One bad law should not begat another!

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  104. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  105. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    My fault. I didn't mean YOU, Slack3r78. I meant 'you' as any person in general.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  106. Re: Troll or Naive??? by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
    I'd hope that you are just naive, since THAT can be remedied...

    Aside from the obvious (I never signed anything but my credit card receipt), you must realize that Microsoft is the entity that decides how much to charge. I hope you weren't implying that they have any inherent rights simply because of the MSRP, as that would be STOOPID (sic).

    While you're at it, work on your spelling. Their iz a deference butween There and Their / Your and You're (I won't even get into it's vs. its)

    --
    Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
  107. by reading this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by reading any further in this post, you hereby agree to accept the following license ...

    -------------

    You agree that your immortal Soul has now been pledged ...

  108. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    Granted, but I was a guilty party, so I figured I'd explain myself. Besides, what's the point of debating an issue if it's not to come out with a better understanding of the other side?

  109. I always wonder about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be better environmentally to design/remove the catalytic converters from all new cars (since they would burn less fuel due to less exhaust restriciton) or leve them as they are? In other words, is it better to burn less fuel "dirtier" or burn more fuel "cleanly?"

    1. Re:I always wonder about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, removing the catalytic converter would make practically no difference in engine efficiency. No more than 1 MPG at the most. Opening you window while driving would have more of an effect on MPG. You'd be far better off designing ligher or more aerodynamic cars or improving engine efficiency.

  110. put everyone in jail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless some large corporation can document a way of making money by their being released. It is much safer and you don't have to worry near so much about terrorists.

    1. Re:put everyone in jail! by jonrkc · · Score: 1

      Sadly, it appears the majority of U. S. Americans would think this a reasonable suggestion.

  111. There is a simple answer to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not buy an Xbox, plain and simple. Make sure none of your friends buy one. It will not be long before the end-user is targeted as well. Is this the type of company you want to support?

  112. big difference, skippy. by Erris · · Score: 1
    He copied the MS Bios code, modified it, and sold it. It would be no different if I bought myself a copy of MS Windows, made some modifications to it, burned it to CD, and started selling it as my own.

    There are two big differences there. First, you must have an Xbox to make use of this BIOS. Second, you are confuseing software and hardware. The issues brought up by this simply point back to the absurdity of granting copyrights to non human readable files. You have really bought a bill of goods to even be thinking the way you are.

    On the first point while it's not at all a given that he used M$'s bios in his own there should be nothing wrong with that. It is possible to make a whole bios and I've read that people have done this for the xbox. The FBI would still want to put those folks in jail, but that's beside the point. Because you can't use this bios in anything but an xbox and because you can only use one at a time, there is no difference between the seller physically modifying the bios your machine came with. The modification could happen at the shop, or he could send you a program that would do it for you or you could require the receiver to send back the old bios, or everyone could save themselves a lot of trouble and do just what the seller did. Because no one can offer modifications to the xbox of any kind, xboxes must belong to Microsoft and their franchise is protected by the Federal Govenment.

    The second point is largly covered by the reasoning in the first point. This is a peice of hardware that is being sold. There exists no ready mechanism to modify the bios in an xbox. It was made to controlled by its owners, Microsoft, not its purchasers. If such a mechanism did exist, the bios would be software.

    Why is it that we have extended copyright into hardware again? The path between this point and copyrights for binary files is a straight line. A binary file is just an aragement of 1s and 0s, much like a collection of coggs and gears, that have no meaning to humans and do not deserve protection designed for works of art and literature. Free software will remove the profit holding up this system of abusrd laws and things will get better soon.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  113. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    I dunno....I think 'political correctness' is one of the reasons that the country is "so f**ked up"....people are so afraid of offending someone, that nothing gets said. I think that freedom of speech, by its definition, precludes a freedom from hearing something that might offend you....If someone says something you don't like, then just walk away and don't listen...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  114. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Wavicle · · Score: 1

    Try arguing that you use the word "nigger" to mean idiot (i actually know people like this) and that you just mean "idiot," with no offense to black people.

    I think the problem with this analogy is that "nigger" was originally used as a derogatory term used by whites in america in support of their oppression of blacks.

    "Gay" on the other hand originally meant 'cheerful' or 'happy' (I think the OED has a dozen different definitions of the word, all meaning generally good) and was adopted by the homosexual community to cheerlead the fact that they were happy with their decision and their lifestyle.

    The word "gay" has evolved several times in our language, I would reject the supposition that it should stop now that it has been adopted by a persecuted group.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  115. Re: That doesn't always apply by xRelisH · · Score: 1

    I agree that the US government is being a bitch, but you have to be careful in making generalizations. Just because there was a case where a poor law doesn't mean that all are like this. About your statements: 1: Even if you own something, there are some things that you cannot do with it. Usually there are terms attached to certain purchases. An example of this is buying everquest, and somehow hacking the software such that you don't have to pay the monthly online fees. Generally, if you were to distribute some utility that would allow people who have everquest to go online for free, then you would be committing an illegal act. In this case, an Xbox mod chip might allow you to run DVD-R's with games on them. More indirectly, modding your Xbox to run Linux might cause MS to incurr a minor loss since you may have instead bought a PC (which often come with windows pre-installed) . 2: You're making another generalization here. A baseball bat is made to play baseball, that's the obvious intent. A mod chip is made to modify the manufacturer properties of the Xbox. What you're claiming is that if someone were to buy a gattling gun (or something that's too high power to be purchased even in the U.S. ), that it would be perfectly legal if they were intending to use it as a can opener. 3: Again, take a look at a gattling gun, sure it's mostly used to kill people, but you can't claim that it's ok for someone to have one just because they want to use it as a large dildo.

  116. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
    I think 'political correctness' is one of the reasons that the country is "so f**ked up"
    It's not a matter of being politically correct for me, it's just a matter of treating others decently. I have no problem saying what I wish to say, I just prefer that to do so in a non-abrasive way, and appreciate it when others do the same.
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    I couldn't agree more. Which is exactly why I have a problem with the type language that's being discussed here. In all reality, it makes the speaker appear ignorant, and as such, it's rather difficult to take them seriously. I live in the Southeast US (Georgia, to be exact) so I have to deal with a LOT of garbage. When you regularly hear things like "Those damned mexicans just need to go home if blah blah blah" or any number of derrogatory things about blacks, gays, insert-a-group-here, you develop a fairly sensitive Bullshit-o-Meter. When it starts going off, you stop listening to what the offender has to say. So yeah, you can say whatever you want however you want, I really don't care. The thing is - is anyone going to listen?
  117. Prison hierarchy from bottom to top by S.I.O. · · Score: 1

    GPL Communists
    DeCSS thieves
    Modchippers
    Savegame modifiers
    Warez smugglers
    SmartTags deniers
    CPU-serial killers
    Patent molesters
    Activation anarchists
    Kernel terrorists

  118. say it like it is brudda. by thesilverbail · · Score: 1

    And if the slimey toad who modded you down couldnt tell the difference between passion and flamebait, he can go suck ostrich eggs

    --
    I have found a truly wonderful proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but unfortunately this sig is too small to contain it.
  119. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by nolife · · Score: 1

    I know this is not going to be the popular opinion here on /. but I'll post anyway and not AC.

    Who cares what you are called. There is NOTHING a single person in this world could say or "call me" that would offend me in any way shape or form. You can call me a [x]head (fuck, shit, dick etc..), cracker, faggot, flamer, polish, asshole, bitch, stupid, retard, a bad speller, or any other word in any language or slang you can think of. I might not like you because of opinion differences but I would not be offended by ANY of them. I know who I am, what my weaknesses and strengths are, and what I am capable of doing on a daily basis to cope in the world and have accepted it. A stereotypical reference is and will always be just a word to me.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  120. There is more to this story... by frater_corvus · · Score: 1

    If I remember right, ISOnews.com was also shut down in 2000 because they had posted links to Dreamcast ISOs. While the claim was made that there weren't any ISOs on the site itself, the site was taken and given back under the provision that links to any pirated ISOs would not be posted on this website. I can only guess that this would be the final straw.

  121. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK lets create a new definition of a word:

    NIGGER - a lazy stupid person

    The reason this country is fucked up is because it's full of fucking NIGGERS like you. Plese note I'm not a biggot. In three states that I grew up in (15 years ago), 'NIGGER' meant 'stupid' - it had nothing to do with their black skin.

  122. Hypocrisy? by badasscat · · Score: 1

    The government are happy to jail someone who sells a piece of kit that allows people to copy games, whilst trying to pass laws [bbc.co.uk] that protect gun manufacturers from being sued if their guns are used in a crime.

    Ah, hypocrisy. Similar to "irony" in its misunderstanding these days - just as it's not actually irony if it rains on your wedding day, it's not actually hypocrisy for the government to enact laws inconsistently. What would be hypocrisy would be for the government to sell these mod chips themselves but still arrest others for doing the same thing, and I don't see them doing that.

    You can accuse the government of being a lot of things in this case - stupid, overzealous, bull-headed, whatever... but there's no hypocrisy here that I can see. They're just enforcing the law as it's written, and it's not a hypocritical law at all. A dumb law, an overreaching law, but not a hypocritical one.

  123. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that "gay" is used universally to mean idiot you are a fucking moron, or 13 years old.

    Grow up.

  124. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Just curious...you say you live in GA, but, I'm guessing you weren't 'born and raised' there? A lot of your perception of things, people and situations are developed by where you were raised and the conditions around you. Someone who was raised in the North or Midwest, in mostly white only neighborhoods with no school integration, middle income land, wouldn't know what it is like to live like, say in southern LA, or MS...where there is a huge, welfare population that in general, you see as having a lazy, non-working leech off society attitude. Seeing a lot of this 'stereotypical' behavior being acted out in front of you on an ongoing basis, can shape that person's attitudes and language concerning such (hence you have the 'names' for these groups, "white trash, niggers, spics, rednecks...etc") If you grow up with these terms, and it seems normal to you to describe such groups in this way, it doesn't seem like a lot of garbage, just how these people are described.....I also find that it works both ways. People everywhere have prejudices against some one, some group, or some activity. I think in a way, it is human nature to a great extent. People by nature look for patterns...even where there may be none, but, that is how we move into 'new' situations...you prejudge what you enter into based on previous life experiences and lessons. The tough part, is to go past that, and once you understand your situation better...you form new opinions on them. And you form new ways to describe them...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  125. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by michrech · · Score: 1

    "...the homosexual community to cheerlead the fact that they were happy with their decision and their lifestyle.

    The fact that people call things that they think are stupid "gay" doesn't get me as upset as those who go around thinking that being homosexual is a 'choice'. I didn't wake up one day and go, "You know what? I dislike the taste of pussy. I think I'll just suck cock for the rest of my life despite the fact it'll get me oppressed in my day-to-day life. Yea. Cock it is!" It's no more a choice than someone who is heterosexual. They aren't that way by 'choice'. That is just part of their existance. It's not something, obviously, that can be explained. If it were a choice, do you *really* think I'd choose to go against the majority of the rest of *Earth*!? Puh-leeze!

    To those in this thread - get over it. Get a life. 'Gay' will be used to mean homosexual/stupid/happy, 'hella' will be used in place of 'very' (even though it's a larger word), nigger will still be used by 'white' people as a derogatory word twords 'blacks' and 'blacks' will use it to greet eachother, etc. that is life.

    Move on. Nothing to see here.

    --
    bork bork bork!
  126. Correction by infernalC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The purpose of 'jails' is to sustain the custody of individuals who are charged with crimes or are material witnesses to crimes. The purposes of 'prisons' are to prevent convicted criminals from harming society through isolation, to provide a mechanism by which they may be 'corrected', and to provide a strong deterrent to crime.

    I know you didn't want to go there, but the irony here is that the subject of the incarceration need not be corrected, but the law he violated should be recognized as inconsitent with his right to property. His actions were allegedly in conflict with the law. The court is responsible for choosing which of the three outcomes is made manifest:

    - His conflict with the law did in fact exist, and since he willfully commited the crime, he should be corrected.
    - His conflict with the law did not exist because the law is being misinterpreted or misapplied in the charge or the charge is not proven, therefore he is not to be corrected and (possibly) precedence is set.
    - The law is inconsistent with the Constitution, therefore the law is corrected.

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution establish our right to property (pursuit of happiness) and our right to the retention of property except through due process. Property is not an object itself, but the rights we exercise with respect to a certain object.

    I would content that the modification of property is a right which must be taken away by due process only.

  127. stats on prison by tacokill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just saw a story that the US has over 2 million people in jail right now.

    By FAR, the highest percentage of prisoners to population of any country in the world, except maybe China, who has unpublished numbers.

  128. Criminal Trial by phriedom · · Score: 1

    Its pretty sad that this post is up at +5. This was a criminal trial. Corporations had no involvement in the trial. They bought the law, and perhaps they suggest who should be prosecuted, but they are not running the court case. Taxpayers foot the bill for prosecutors don't use Strategic Lawsuits, they put people in jail.

    The guy probably pled because he would lose the case in court. He DID break the law, the bad, bad law.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  129. Safe Harbour legislation by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    This is touching on a legitimate concern. Let me explain.

    Premise: The general public want to buy consoles as presents for each other, and the price has to be under $500 at the very most, preferably under $200. They are prepared to pay $50 for a game that will bring enjoyment for the whole family for several months (1 year on, my friends are still playing Halo every week).

    Solution: The manufacturer sells consoles at a loss, hoping to make their profits on the games sales.

    Problem: Hackers will mod the console so that it can run software that the manufacturer does not make any money on.

    Solution: Create 'safe harbour' legislation that allows the public to have what they want. The manufacturer can sell their hardware at a loss, and make the money back on the games, without fear of losing a fortune on consoles that will not create a revenue stream (e.g. LinuXBox media station).

    I'm being serious here, what's the problem with the above situation? Without the safe market, the consoles wouldn't get made, so by buying under-priced hardware and hacking it, you're pissing in the pool for everyone else. I doubt that Sony or MS would have released their current consoles at the price they did if anyone could write games with no royalty to the console manufacturer.

    1. Re:Safe Harbour legislation by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      Getting the State to prop up businesses that couldn't succeed in a free market is called mercentilism. We already have more than enough of that crap already. If they want to regulate what you can do with their product, enter into a CONTRACT. We already have perfectly good contact law.

      Why does every video rental shop require a signed agreement? Because otherwise when they took your money and handed you a product they would have just SOLD it and would have no recourse if you failed to return it.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    2. Re:Safe Harbour legislation by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      If they want to regulate what you can do with their product, enter into a CONTRACT
      A large portion of the console market is made up of people under the age of majority. Also it would make second-hand sales and gift purchases really awkward. My point is, the great unwashed don't want that complication, all they want is cheap consoles. This can only be achieved with protection, either technical or legal. They are prepared to accept the restrictions that come with this.
  130. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by bobKali · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that the "unnecessary or frivolous" definition of gay falls closer to the original "happy" definition of gay rather than the "homosexual" definition, and would therefore be more likely to imply that happy people are stupid than it would be to make a statement about homosexuals.

  131. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    Born and raised here, actually. My dad's from New York, but is actually quite conservative. My mom, on the other hand, is from here, and quite the liberal. Yeah, environment is a factor, but it's not overriding. The overriding factor are parents who teach their kids to think for themselves rather than spoon feed them their beliefs. It's really rather sickening the number of people I know here who have the beliefs they do simply because it's what their parents believed, with no other real meritt. Personally, I consider the abillity to rationally look at a situation and find the root cause for yourself a key sign of intelligence. Throwing people into stereotypes and assigning labels doesn't fall into this. Actually, I can tell you first hand that the areas where prejudice and bigotry are highest in the white community are the areas that are relatively poor with poor school systems. I've personally witnessed a direct corellation between prejudice and a lack of understanding of the world in general. I've grown up with it around me, and I don't see it as acceptable. There are just as many (hell, it wouldn't surprise me if there were more) white leeches on welfare as black. I've heard just about any slur you can think of thrown around. The one pattern I notice here (yeah, patterns again)? The fact that the people making these statements generally have a skewed world view. It's just as arbitrary as the "reasoning" behind the persecution of the jews in Europe (not just under Hitler, it's a recurrent theme in European history), and in fact, many of the same weak arguments are used here for group XYZ. I don't really know what I'm getting at here. I think what I'm basically saying is yes, it exists, environment is a factor, but it's not an excuse.

  132. MOD THIS FAGGOT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Calling people a "fuckwit" is not how one goes about having a civil discussion. There was no cause to call that person a fuckwit. Furthermore, he spelled "Britney" wrong - thus proving that he is a fuckwit and probably lacking a penis. If there's one thing a heterosexual male knows, it is who Britney Spears is - that dirty whore.

    Furthermore, slippery slope arguments are for dumb niggers that don't understand logic. I hope this guy gets a boyfriend soon so Slashdot won't have to suffer from his bullshit.

  133. Because by GeckoX · · Score: 1

    That would be a false market.

    Consumerism 101:
    CompanyX has productY for sale for $Z dollars. I buy productY for $Z dollars. End of transaction.

    Now I take MY productY home and do whatever the fuck I want with it.

    So, if CompanyX assumed that I would do [q] with productY which would generate more revenue for CompanyX, and even worse, takes a loss on productY based on this assumption, but then I don't do [q] and thus do not give CompanyX more money because I bought productY ONLY, and NEVER intended to do [q], we should force legislation making this illegal and create a false market to hold up CompanyX?

    Fuck that man!
    If MS crashes and burns because they sell the XBox hardware without enough markup, am I supposed to cry? Fuck that man!

    Oh, I get it. Cars should be $500 new, and we should be forced to buy $1000 worth of gas, from the company we bought the car from, ad infinum. What a wonderful world that would be!

    Just remember, you thought of it, not me so you can gladly have all the credit!

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:Because by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      That would be a false market.
      So is the entire copyright and patent system, and you don't hear - oh, wait...
    2. Re:Because by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
      Oh, I get it. Cars should be $500 new, and we should be forced to buy $1000 worth of gas, from the company we bought the car from, ad infinum. What a wonderful world that would be!
      Straw man. I'm not saying that this model should be expanded to other areas, areas that the public clearly don't want it to apply to. In addition, no-one is compelled to buy games for the X-Box, you might be happy with the bundle that came with it, I'm not proposing that you be frogmarched back to the retailer every month.
  134. hardware not license by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1
    your logic is flawed.

    PVC pipe and WD-40 have lots of other uses than building weapons of "mash" destruction. (sorry)

    selling something which ENCOURAGES and FACILITATES illegal activity - and in this case had no legal use - then you are on a slippery slope.

    "honestly," your honor, "i had no idea he was going to use my ford mustang performace chip to illegally enhance the performance of his ford mustang."

    "i shoot them at trees in my backyard."

    just because you do not think it is right, does not make it wrong.

  135. what? me worry? by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    please, oh please show us the piercing stares of the children whos lives have been shattered. show us the widows whos futures have been destroyed. we do need to see the families of victums that whoes very lives will be forever changed by the cruel deeds of one vile outlaw.

    wait a minute, you mean to tell me that a toy maker goes to jail for making toys?

  136. Minority Report by jdfox · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.

    Yes, or like invading a country and cluster-bombing its civilians because "they might develop WMD".

  137. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and would therefore be more likely to imply that happy people are stupid

    so what you're saying is "Ignorance is Bliss"?

  138. Re:You lick the man pole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey, I'm willing to take a shot in the mouth if it gets me a couple hundred miles down the road. (With all due respect to jay & silent bob)

  139. Maybe, maybe not by endoboy · · Score: 1

    There's a case before the Supremes right now that may have some bearing on this--there are a variety of companies that sell "editted" versions of movies; chopping out the objectionable bits. They purchase individual copies and then edit them and distribute...This is significant in that they are paying for the intellectual property at the market rate.

    There's considerable debate if this is permissable practice; we'll have to wait for a verdict to see what the state of the law really is.

    Point being--if the Supremes rule that the purchase/edit/distribute loop is permissable, why could you not extend the concept to an editted BIOS--aka mod-chip?

  140. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoa, so you admit you're a bone-smoking gay faggoty choad-chugging ass-bandit?

    That takes balls... and I don't mean the ones you're holding in your mouth right now!

  141. Major occlusion from the article. by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

    You know, the tiny bit of info regarding the fact that he also was involved in selling DSS hacking equipment.

    I bet that had a pretty big role to play in his arrest.

    Also keep in mind that the XBox BIOS isn't, really, a copyright protection mechanism. It's primary (and I don't count using a ATA spec. hard drive lock to be a copyright protection mechanism) function is booting the PC. Not making sure you can't play copyrighted games. As a matter of fact the XBox doesnt have any real copyright protection. Which is going to screw them on this one. Because ALOT of the modchips for the XBox do NOT come shipped with a MS based BIOS, the Xecuter II lite does, the enigmah (which sucks) does, and a couple others, but the Xecuter II Pro, Matrix, and that Aussie one, donn't come with a BIOS or come with the Linux Boot only BIOS. It's pretty damned hard to imply that a modchip that, as sold, only lets you boot Linux and nothing else is a device for bypassing copyright protection (if, as I said before, you want to really call it that).

    In short, the "end of XBox modding" approach some articles have suggested is far from the case. But maybe the stock the retailers carry will change a bit :) or maybe they will stop advertising them as XBox modchips and instead call them "replacement backup BIOS's" or some such BS, and only ship chips without BIOS's on them, that way, as advertised they are nothing more than a generic BIOS replacement for....whatever really. The problem comes in when you start SAYING "plays backups". And when you start SAYING your product will mod the XBox. If BMW startedmarketing their cars with the feature "High Performance breaking to help you in your bank robberies" they'd come under fire too :)

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
  142. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't believe it. A cigarette is never called a 'fag' in Canada, and a bundle of sticks is never called a 'faggot'. Those two words have only one meaning here, although we are aware of the british origins and original meanings.

    The brits, and possibly the aussies and kiwis are the ones most likely to use the terms as he'd described.

  143. The word faggot by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    That's one word I do find offensive. Nigger/Negro/Nigre/Noir/Schwarz etc. are just words for black in another language.

    But as far as I know faggot means a bundle of sticks used for kindling wood. I.e. someone who is burned at the stake. I am not keen on being burned at the stake (or the muslim equivalents, being stoned/decapitated/cast into quicklime) so I find this offensive.

    "Fag" for cigarette seems to be obviously from the same route.

    On the other hand, "shirtlifter" seems quite innocent... :-)

  144. What about the domain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In theory, the domain isonews.com was confiscated by the DoJ, and as it is not illegal in itself, they should be selling it as they do with other properities that they seize.

    Anyone know the rules around it?

  145. Re:Maybe, maybe not by dirk · · Score: 1

    It would only apply if this guy was buying chips from Ms and then editting them and selling them. He is taking blank chips, adding his own editted BIOS, and then selling them, which is clearly different then buying a movie, editting it, and reselling it. And just for the record I don't think they should be allowed to edit and resell movies, because it then can reflect on the original work. If a person sees only the editted version, they may not know it has been editted and think it's a piece of crap (while the uneditted is good). You are forceably attaching someone's name to something they have no control over.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  146. Typo in Article by ediron2 · · Score: 1
    Typo in the Register article. Where it says:
    and a $28,500 fine - that's £18,355 in real money.
    The corrected text is: that's £18,355 in monopoly money.

    Seriously, it was da*n funny to see a website with a vast USA audience get all provincial about the USA. We're so bad about it, and I like the 'turnabout is fair play' school of thinking.

    Speaking of which, what's the correct term for this sort of a gaff/slur/self-centeredness?

  147. No one seems to have noticed... by jcoleman · · Score: 1

    ...that the lawyers in this case, who are US Federal Employees, prosecuted someone for copyright infringement at the behest of Microsoft. Microsoft, a company that has been found guilty in US federal court of violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. That means YOUR TAXES paid to defend the ability of Microsoft, a company found guilty of FEDERAL CRIMES, to do business. You think this will come out in the mass media?

    You should write your congressman immediately, but you won't because you are too busy watching your DVDs and playing your games to bother with that. Nevermind, move along. Oh, since you're not going to be using your vote this November, can I have it?

  148. He pleaded guilty... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    ...So there was no trial, only sentencing.

    The lesson to others here should be: If you get accused of a crime, hire the best lawyer you can afford.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:He pleaded guilty... by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      What? No. If he'd hired the best lawyer he could have found, he would be in debt for the rest of his life. Microsoft could have just kept bringing him back to court, over, and over, and over again until his legal fees were something on par with what the RIAA is suing that MTU kid for.

    2. Re:He pleaded guilty... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a civil suit, it was a criminal case. Charges of criminal action were brought against the defendant by the attorney general's office. Interested corporations, namely Microsoft, probably called up the attorney general and asked him or her to look into the case of this individual, but it was definately the A.G. bringing the case, not Microsoft.

      In the United States, you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. If you are acquitted, the government does not get an appeal. If you are found guilty, you may appeal to a higher court, up until you reach the Supreme Court, which as the name suggests is the ultimate court of the United States.

      So it actually should have been better for him that it was a criminal case. But he was dumb and didn't get a lawyer and just plead guilty, probably after he confessed to the FBI without a lawyer present.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
  149. What he REALLY did wrong by iceT · · Score: 1

    The register can really piss me off... They never print the full story.. just the inflamitory parts.

    What the guy did wrong was sell the Enigmah chip. That chip was not flashable, and came with the hacked bios INSTALLED.

    It's the only chip that isn't flash programmable, and the only chip that came with the bios.

    I still don't think it's illegal to sell the mod chips without the BIOS. It's the BIOS software that is illegal, because most of the bios' out there are hacked versions of the original bios.

    If you use the open source bios for the xbox to run things like Linux, it should not violate the DCMA.

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  150. Nit picking by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

    Actually the president can veto a unamious vote. The veto means they have to reconsider it and put it to a recorded vote.

    Not that Clinton was going to do anything of the sort, the Hollywood lefties were a core funding source.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  151. ObFeiss by LMariachi · · Score: 1
    There was this "beep beep beep" and my rights were just... gone.

    They were really good rights, too.

  152. actually, "gay" != "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well first off, your "nigger" example is off since "gay" is an acceptable term (that is, not derogatory) and "nigger" *is* derogatory.

    Just because "gay" was a SERIOUS INSULT in ... .. GRADE SCHOOL doesn't mean the term is taboo. For example, "kaka head" was probably quite insulting in my preschool, though I admit now it has lost quite a lot of its edge.

    Next, "gay" doesn't mean stupid. It is used so frequently because it captures an idea that can't be described otherwise. For example, if I see a play where an actor starts to sing and its incredibly cheesey in this particular way, I wouldn't say "this is stupid." In fact, the only thing I could say is "oh my god, this is the gayest thing I've ever seen." "This is so gay." Gay means something like cheesey -- its so complex, I can't describe it. Its such a beautiful and multifaceted word (again, this refers to my specific idiolect) that conveys something important in our age of irony -- its hard to put a finger on it. But I kid you not -- it's not stupid.

    And it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Long live man-on-man!

  153. Re:Maybe, maybe not by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
    I'm not seeing how it is that different. The guy takes the BIOS produced by MS, modifies it (censors, edits, whatever), and then resells it. It's the same concept - taking a copyrighted work produced by others, changing it to suit the needs of a customer, and selling it to that customer.

    Same difference.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  154. If I was a retailer by cyril3 · · Score: 1

    I'd be worried. It's getting to the point where it will be cheaper to rob the store than get pirate copies from the web.

  155. Re:Maybe, maybe not by dirk · · Score: 1

    Except he's selling an infinite number of copies of the BIOS, not the copy of the BIOS he purchased. In the case of the videos, they buy 1 copy of the movie, censor it, and then sell that single copy of the movie. If would be as if they bought 1 copy of the video, censored it, and then dubbed their censored copy and sold those. You have a case when you can claim you are modifying something you purchased legally (such as with the videos). But this guy purchased one copy and then is distributing multiple copies of his editted BIOS. The only way it could possibly fly is if he was buying an X-Box, swapping the chips, and then reselling the X-Box. Purchasing it once doesn;t give you the right to distribute the BIOS multiple times.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  156. Re:Maybe, maybe not by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1

    Read a few parents up - I'm not defending this guy at all. I was merely pointing out that the cases are similar and that the ruling by the Supreme Court could have an impact. I do see your point though.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  157. This ones a catch 22 by tmortn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He sold a chip with a modified copyrighted BIOS that was only usefull to people who had already bought a fully licensed chip.

    Technically selling a modified copyrighted code is illegal however in this case he wasn't costing M$ any money. Eveyrone he is selling to already paid M$ for a box to use the chip in. Essentially to me he is selling the modifications and the work of installing those modifications. Work he did not M$. He is not cicumventing M$'s money for their material because people already posses it.

    Further more M$'s work is mostly derivative in nature. BIOS systems only have so many ways in which to work and for a piece of equipemt like the X-box there are limited options for how it can be arranged and handled. To me patenting a BIOS is akin to pateting a gear, or cog. I mean ford dosn't hold the keys to combustion engine design. You are perfectly welcome to buy a ford block and modify it and re-sell it. this is the stock and trade kind of sale for most mod shops. THis is NO different than modifying the existing BIOS code in a system. SO long as the code manipulated is legaly obtained there is no issue. If this guy was selling pirate X-boxes I'd say string him up by his tonails. But morally he was selling the equivalent of moded EFI control chips for EFI cars.

    software design has much more in common with engineering design than it does with intellectual works. controlling BIOS code to a specific piece of hardware is tantamount to contolling the use of IF/THEN code usuage. The hardware itself largely dictates the BIOS code. All M$ did was add conditional crap that limited what you could use the hardware for. Something akin to making a hammer that could only be used outside to hammer specific nails instead of using it to hit anything anywhere you want. Why ? Becasue the X-box is essentially and X86 computer with the ability to display quality graphics on a TV for a price point of $250. If they allowed it to be used as an X86 box is would reveal the insane overpriceing of computer hardware. We think of $800 computers as cheap yet you would be hard pressed putting a box together with the specs of the X-box for that price yet ultimately it is the same thing. Or perhaps thats not overpriced and console marketing looses money on the hardware to make it up in $50 a pop game sales and allowing a 250 general purpose computer on the market would kill the PC market which can't compete that way.

    --
    I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  158. Re:Perhaps they thought isonews = hacking? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    We DO have a right to do so. The guy was convicted of copyright infringement, not modifying hardware. A modified version of Microsoft's (copyrighted) BIOS was on the mod chips he sold. He was distributing copyrighted software he didn't have a right to sell. He was breaking the law.

    Now the problem is that copyright infringement should in absolutely no way be a criminal offense. It should be a civil matter, but alas, our laws are fucked. Yeah, he broke the law, but at worst he should have been fined or forced to pay restitution to Microsoft. Being incarcerated for copyright infringement (computer "crimes" are becoming more punitive in this country than violent crimes are) is fucking insane.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  159. Not the best titled by Orthogonal+Jones · · Score: 1



    I misread it. I thought it said "Jan Mailed For Smelling Sodchips", and I was disappointed.

    Why isn't there anything about three-legged races?

  160. +1 Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject.

  161. Look at the Facts by lessbianinman · · Score: 1
    This guy was hosting an FTP repository of Copywrited software CD images. That is what got his butt in trouble. The case sited the fact that not only was isonews selling modchips, but also hosted an ftp server filled with CD Images of games for the XBOX.

    Can't openly host a piriating web server and sell the hardware to use those images.

    I am not defending the DMCA (Digital Melinium Control Act) but you must realize that this individual could have been convicted under standard copywrite laws either way he was toast!

    --
    Activity can create the wonderful illusion of productivity! ---Me
  162. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that the origin of this slang meaning "stupid" began as a derogatory statement about homosexuals. Homophobic high school kids used it to insult each other. Insulting someone by calling them "gay" meant that the person being insulted was a fag first and a stupid person second. Don't use slang if you don't know where it comes from.

  163. He DESERVED IT. Trying to Cheat USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to Cheat an American company of its HARD EARNED money
    Mod Chips are evil, you unAmerican liberal SCUM

    We live in a capitalist society and evertything has a price and if you DONT pay it you are a THIEF

    Microsoft is a great American company and has helped us maintain dominance over everyone else

    You are insulting such a great company by questioning their desire to make their rightful profit.

    LIBERAL SCUM

    WATCH some TV you MORON
    SEE who has WON
    USA ALWAYS WINS
    USA! USA! USA!
    Did you bleeding heart liberal scum see how much love and respect the iraqi people showered on our brave troops. We are ALWAYS right.

    If you DONT love it, LEAVE IT.

  164. DMCA flawed, but a step in the right direction by fxer · · Score: 1

    Face it, modchips are illegal and are primarily used for pirating. Courts have said again and again that if something is *primarily* used for illegal means, then it is illegal. Like bongs and pipes, "They're for tobacco", sure they are buddy, they are as illegal as modchips (as roundups of bong makers in oregon/pennsylvanya have shown). People all pissed off about the DMCA in any form just want to keep running around in a lawless technoworld where everything is free (as is the current case). Hmm, sounds a lot like what Pablo Escobar was doing in Columbia....

    1. Re:DMCA flawed, but a step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, well looking at the software that *most* modders are using on the XBox, it's providing many features that people want to see. Playing MP3, AVI's, media files, launching your games from the hard drive, pullng files off of home servers, etc. Just because the device has the potential for piracy, dosen't mean that people who use it for other purposes are pirates. It comes down to personal ethics.

      I find it odd that with rampant piracy in the games industry, the industry STILL grows at double digits year over year.

  165. but hang on another second....... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    did *HE* copy the MS bios code, mod it and sell it, OR did he just sell them??

  166. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by siliconwafer · · Score: 1

    According to Chris Rock, "... there's a lot of racism going on in America, and there's two sides. There's black people, and there's niggers."

    So there you have it, from a black man, that the word nigger has nothing to do with being black. For all we know, his definition of "nigger" includes white people, too.

  167. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHATEVER... you geek virgin! ;)

  168. Re: best troll ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right. That is a good troll. My best ("fuck you, vegan", similar topic) got nowhere near that kind of response.

  169. marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a mod chip is marketed to play copied games, if a baseball bat was marketed as able to: Smash your co-worker's skull in, paralyze former loved ones.. i suppose a baseball bat wouldnt get very far
    but one of the main features of a mod chip is to play copied games...if that was a sideffect and not the main feature, i think that mod chips wouldnt be getting a bad name

  170. Xbox and modchipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is always interesting reading /. people putting in their two cents on the modchip debate. It never ceases to amaze me how people can feel so strongly on something they don't understand.

    MS has problems with people using their BIOS code (or modified version) in modchips. It is basically the equivalent of copying a Windblows CD and selling it - it is simply piracy. Code is code, firmware is firmware. It's not like we're talking discrete logic gates here. The modchips are roms that store an xbox bios.

    That said, in my warped opinion i don't think MS mind a bit of piracy here and there as it allows them to get market share. This is what the xbox is all about at the moment. However once they have a big enough following you can rest assured that subsequent xboxy releases will be harder and harder to mod.

    Remember the PS1 - I was never interested in those till I found out you could copy their games (and neither were my friends)! Just look what they did to the N64 (admittedly PS1s CD drive also gave them an advantage)

    Anyway, just my 2c.

  171. Mi�ro$oft is stupid by penguinrenegade · · Score: 1

    If they are SO paranoid about this, why don't they put their BIOS into a package form that can't be modchipped? Solder it directly onto the motherboard, from underneath and on top. Make it with hundreds of teeny little connections that robots have a hard time with.

    If they REALLY wanted their BIOS to NOT be modchipped, they would pay the extra nickel per board to make it nearly impossible to get around. End of story. Miro$oft LIKES to get items like this in the news. They LIKE having a lot of attention focused on them instead of Linux, Macintosh, or whatever.

    As the old saying goes, talk good about me or talk bad about me, just talk about me.

    As the former owner of several sports card shops, I can tell you that when a player is inducted into the Hall of Fame in his particular sport, his cards do not in fact go up very much. You see, he's been retired for five years, meaning he's not in the news every day like when he played. So, when he is inducted into the Hall of Fame, his cards are worth almost exactly HALF of what they were on the day he retired. Get a series of price guides out. They will back this up. But people buy cards in DROVES, and repeat the SAME mantra, "When (player's name) retires, I'm going to put little Billy through college."

    I'm not making this up. Even negative publicity will HELP people most of the time. When Ronald Reagan was running for re-election, one of his opponents ran an ad detailing all the crap Reagan pulled. Reagan loved it. You see, it showed Reagan in front of an American flag, while the announcer voiced over the info. All those people who saw it with the sound muted only saw Reagan and an American flag. Better publicity than Reagan could buy.

    Miro$oft does this on PURPOSE.

    --

    Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows '98

  172. Hrm....sounds like denial to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok - first off, I own a chipped xbox - I love it.

    Second off - any of you that don't think mod chips are _mostly_ used by pirates are yet again showing your (what I like to call) Linux blindness. It's incredibly pervasive here - people go into denial about reality because it 'might' impact linux. Get real.

  173. Do I have to spell it for you? by Yogurtu · · Score: 1

    Same kind of problem, same solution: Refuse to buy the products until the companies which make them either make the licensing conditions clear before purchase or return your money in case you don't agree with its terms. Maybe a website could be put up by consumer organizations explaining the different EULAs to normal people, and perhaps commenting on them. People don't usually wake up on their own, but some can be helped. It just takes a few very determined individuals to start, and it can become a steamroller. People in the Open Source movement should know that already...

  174. To steal or not to steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law is law, if he was making money off of someone else's code (BIOS) then ... I mean I cant stand at the corner selling weed becuase its illgal. You people are killing me over here. Seems its ok until someone gets caught. Stealing is stealing foo's.

  175. yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh god forbid microsoft lose a whole twenty dollars due to a Modchip, MS has what, billions upon billions of dollars now?

  176. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most males engage in some form of homosexual experamentation at some point in life (IMO), some discover that it floats their boat more then hetero.

  177. SIEG HEIL !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All together now :

    Sieg !

    HEIL !!!

  178. Ruining it for everyone else. by Trogre · · Score: 1

    If he really was selling them for the purpose of copyright infringement, then he's ruining it for the rest of the XBox modders who have turned otherwise useless hardware into web servers, PVRs, unrestricted media players etc.

    You know, the ones who buy modchips without any microsoft code in them.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  179. Re:so "gay" = "stupid" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up you gay nigger. Your post has more bullshit in it than a full-grown bull.

  180. Faulty cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read a bit of Fifth Business just a minute ago, and guess what? My toe hurts now.

  181. X-box sucks anyway by 56ksucks · · Score: 1

    If I wanted a 733mhz Celeron with 64 megs of RAM and a Geforce card and a 10 gig hard drive I'd just build one for about the same price as a modded X-box. Or even better, I'd slap in an nForce motherboard and I'd have it already with a much faster CPU and more RAM.

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  182. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    Also another major deciding factor is availability of source code.
    It just gives everybody a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that there is
    source code available to the product you are using. It allows everybody
    to improve on the product and fix bugs etc. sooner that the author(s)
    would get the time/chance to.
    -- Atif Khan

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...