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!
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...
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***
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?
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 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*
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.
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 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."
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
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
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...
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?"