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.
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?
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.
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
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?"