Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Hacking Book Prepares to Fly Off Shelves
SecurityFocus posted an article today about a new book that covers hacking the Xbox. The book's author, Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, reports that it's selling well, even though the release date has not yet arrived. Presumably, this is because the book covers soldering techniques and adding features like blue LEDs and modchips to Xboxes, most of which violate the DMCA. If this stuff is interesting to you, you can order a copy from Huang's site. It amazes me that a book such as this could be banned, yet car service manuals can be sold in most bookstores.
At the heart of the modding debate (or very close to it), I think that Microsoft wants to prevent hacking and modding of the Xbox because it reveals to the consumers the true identity of the Xbox: a PC that is being sold far too cheaply; an entry into the console market that would be completely unsustainable if Microsoft were not a monopoly (I.E. able to sustain gross losses in many other markets in order to direct/force attention back to their OS and Office suite).
$6,000 worth of R-Type stickers, racing stripes, sparkling paint jobs, loud exhaust pipes, and annoying Chinese characters that most likely mean "Stupid Round-Eye" serve no beneficial purpose to a $5,000 Dodge Neon either, nevertheless, they adorn the vehicles of 17 year olds everywhere.
The only part that violates the DMCA is the part that describes how to circumvent copy protection schemes.
That's the reason Microsoft will want him to hang over this.
It's also the reason someone has to do it. Someone has to stand up and show how insane this all is. Too bad someone has to martyr themselves in order to get the point across. This guy will ruin his fiscal life in the united states.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Is the book banned, or the techniques the book describes? There's a big difference.
Clearly, the book is not banned, since it is being published directly by the author. However, from his site, the book was not picked up by a publisher for fear of lawsuits. That's somewhat alarming, but it's not equivalent to outlawing a book.
Actually, there are plenty of "survival" manuals and whatnot out there that describe all kinds of illegal activities, so I would be surprised if tort law could be used to terminate publication of a book (because if it could, it would have been done already in other contexts). However, this doesn't mean that the threat of lawsuits could not be used as a scare tactic.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Microsoft has every right to void the warranty if I purposely modify the box. What they don't have is the right to demand I don't violate the EULA and void the warranty. I hate to say it, but corporations should be banned from donating money to political parties or candidates. If a company wants to push their own agendas, they shouldn't get a free write off. Instead, they should have to pay their employees, who then donate the money. This means, for every dollar a company spends to buy votes, they have to pay taxes on it. I have no problem with companies like microsoft buying influence in the white house as long as those purchases are taxes at 33%.
How is modding your X-Box illegal under the DCMA? I don't doubt that somehow it is (Frankly I wouldn't be suprised if having a dream with a top 100 song in it is illegal too) but is it only illegal if you actually use it for infringement purposes, or is the modification of the device itself illegal?
if the actual harware mod is illegal then WTF? I should be able to do whatever I want with my hardware (physically). I bought it, I own it. I can hit it repeatedly with a bat If I wish. I can dunk it in a bathtub full of milk, I can throw it through any window in my house I so choose (That is if I own the house, but If I have enough income to fill a tub with milk then I think I would have enough money own the house (maybe in this example I own a barn)).
Just wait, pretty soon automakers will start using the DMCA to keep you from repairing your car yourself. That way you have to take it to an "authorized repair center".
American auto manufacturing started out as a small, boutique industry. Henry Ford changed all that by assuming (correctly, as it happened) that ordinary people would buy cars if he made it practical for them to own them. Part of this was inventing more efficient manufacturing techniques, so he could sell cars more cheaply. But he also specifically encouraged the aftermarket car parts industry, even going so far as to choosing his own manufacturing techniques so that they'd be easy to copy. Thus somebody with a broken Model T didn't have to send away to Michigan for parts. This relationship extends to this day.
I own several books that give step-by-step instructions on how to commit acts that are felonies under federal law. The authors and publishers have a first amendment right to publish this information, even if acting upon it would be a crime. Why should a book on hacking the xbox be any different?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
God damnit people, if you're going to rail against something, you should at least learn what it actually is. The DMCA explicitly excludes speech from being outlawed. The issue with DeCSS was wether source code should be considered 'speech' or a 'device'
A book is obviously not a device, and it is protected by both the 1st amendment and the DMCA itself!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You refer to tort law. That's certainly a factor. But the DMCA provides for criminal prosecution of violators. If nobody is willing to publish, or even self-publish, books on hacking this or that because they don't want to go to jail -- well then, that kind of book is banned, whatever you call the process.
None of it violates the DMCA. Books are not devices. They do not violate the DMCA. Ever.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Flying off shelves? How can it fly off shelves if it's being sold direct by the author? Wouldn't it need to be sold in bookstores to be capable of flying off of shelves?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
While the DMCA makes it easy to shut down a web site, the US Judiciary is VERY leary about restraint of dead tree writing and publishing. IMO, Mr. Huong getting a pro-bono defence would be easy, since any attorney should/would know that a form letter with a law office header is about all that's needed to fend off anything short of a libel suit or national security issues.
For instance, printing and selling a magazine with DeCSS source code is no big deal, but if the same people put links to the electronic version on their web site, it is. As long as the "Anarchist's Cookbook" is still on the shelves, "Hacking the Xbox: an Introduction to Reverse Engineering" hasn't got a problem.
Luke, help me take this mask off
What the...no! No! I was only adjusting the carburetors! Nooooo!!!!!
The car service manual analogy is interesting. I wonder how the public would react if Ford sued Chilton, using the DMCA? There are plenty of aftermarket carbs, cam shafts, mod chips etc for cars. What would prevent Ford or GM from applying the DMCA on aftermarket parts manufacturers?
Ford has a copyright on the engine design and wants to control access to the design. By taking an engine apart you can thwart their control and get the engine design. They bolt the engine togther pretty tight, so that is their copyright protection.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
I am not an open source zealot, but I do have serious concerns about many of the projects that Microsoft has on the horizon, such as Palladium, the whole Trustyworthy Computing scheme, and Microsoft's push toward their proprietary Windows Media format. I see the purchase of an X-BOX as a $200 endorsement of Microsoft. And that's not something I am comfortable doing.
The whole DCMA debate leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I follow most of the discussions pertaining to the DCMA on Slashdot. In fact, it seems like the X-BOX is the focal point of much of the DCMA debate on this site. And while I agree that the DCMA is a terrible piece of legislation, I don't see the logic of buying and modding an X-BOX to protest the DCMA. It seems like the easiest thing to do is to avoid the DCMA entirely, or at least, to avoid the corporations that use the DCMA to prosecute consumers. I can render Microsoft's enforcement of the DCMA moot by not purchasing an X-BOX. If I want to hack around on a console, I think the best choice is a Dreamcast. I can run NetBSD on it, and since it is no longer a revenue stream for Sega, they are not going to go to legal expense of throwing the DCMA at enthusiasts who hack around on it.
Microsoft is making it difficult to buy an X-BOX without also making additional purchases, namely X-BOX Live! Some of the newer games, and especially many games on the horizon and in development, will simply not be playable without an X-BOX Live subscription. There is also at least one game out now for the X-BOX that virutally requires the purchase of an additional controller which costs nearly $100.00. It seems that this is a trend that Microsoft will continue. And it's a trend I have no desire to endorse.
Simply, I can write all of the vehement arguments I want against Microsoft and the DCMA. But if I were to open my wallet and plunk down the cash to buy one, I'd feel very hypocritical because the best way for me to protest the DCMA is to avoid the X-BOX altogether.
Xbox hacking is funny, but it just shows microsoft how to make the secure PC truly secure - the Xbox hackers are gradually teaching them about all the glitches, so they can produces something uncrackable in the future.
If you unsoldered the bios chip that contains the boot code and mailed it back to MS. Does that mean you have the legal right to do anything you want with it at that point? Since there is no licensed software in it?