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.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
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!
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.
because the DMCA is already abusive...it's just being applied normally. Best thing is to repeal that abomination.
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***
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
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?
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]
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!!!!
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
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."
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.
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.
http://www.davetansley.com - you proba
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?"
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.
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