Slashdot Mirror
Modchip Designer Taunts Microsoft
Thanks to Polygon for posting a follow-up to the article we ran about Australian Xbox modchip designers releasing their schematics to the public. They have a story quoting AussieChip creator Grant Sparks as subsequently saying "It would be a little disappointing if [Microsoft] couldn't sue me. You see, I'm quite happy for them to take us to court, I just want to see it happen under conditions where we win. In order for them to argue they have not agreed to the download conditions, they would have to acknowledge that click-through legal agreements are not valid - which is something that I think would be very funny to see Microsoft doing. There are many other reasons why people want to use a modchip, and only one of them is directly illegal. I'd be happy to stand up and explain that in court."
<RANT>
Firstly I was going to moderate this topic, but being as there was only 2 comments (and they were about being the first post) were there. Common guys, is getting the first post all that great? I mean we an easily display in newest first order. Then your FP!!! will be LP!!!! :-P
</RANT>
Now to my point. I think this is the right kind of attitude towards mod chips. Keep at it until modders get their way. As pointed out above mod chips have plenty of other uses than the illegal ones, we've all heard the arguments before.
What I am most interested is how MS will handle (cause you know they won't sit and take this) the catch-22 that has been set up here. I'm sure they will try and down play it, but its sure to come up. I predict that MS will try to "steamroll" this poor guy into legal oblivion :-(
Ah well information wants to be free so even if this falls apart there will be more mod chips to be had in the future.
100% Crunchier
It's called "a computer." You are typing at one now.
This guy is about to get an education in law the painful and expensive way.
How many examples does it take to pound through some peoples' heads that it doesn't matter if what you're doing is actually logically technically illegal. Corporate lawyers and PR people can convince non-technical judges and jurries that just about anything they don't really understand is illegal.
They have unlimited budgets, pannels of payed experts, focus groups and statistical research firms.
You have jack shit.
This vulnerability was posted a couple hours ago on VulnWatch. Here's the summary:
Advisory: XBOX Dashboard local vulnerability
Release Date: 2003/07/04
Last Modified: 2003/07/04
Author: Stefan Esser [se@nopiracy.de]
Application: Microsoft XBOX Dashboard (up to today)
Severity: A vulnerability within the XBOX Dashboard allows to totally compromise the security features of the XBOX.
Risk: Critical
Vendor Status: Vendor is not willing to talk about XBOX vulnerabilities.
Exactly, and an xbox is just a computer with the freedom sucked out of it. The computer of the future if you like.
But even though a computer can do all those things, it's not the same as sitting on your couch and being able to relax properly whilst you do them. Give me that and I'll be happy.
This is much different. Yes, those warez disclaimers are bullshit. That's because they're essentially a licence term ("You will not download this if you're a Fed") imposed by someone (l33t w4rez kiddie) on a work that he is not the copyright owner of (Adobe Photoshop or whatnot). You can't impose terms on intellectual property that you don't own. In this modchip case, the person who made the modchip is imposing terms on his own IP: the design of the modchip that he created. IANAL, but it seems just as legal to say "Feds can't download this software that I made" as it does to say "You can't reverse-engineer this software that I made". Now, in the real world, Microsoft's lawyers will find some technicality and sue the hell out of the poor guy. But, in principle, he's allowed to do this to his own IP.
I am a commercial game developer, money I make is through sales of games. I think Linux is dandy, yet I find myself using MS products for obvious reasons. Consoles can't be open for anyone to develop on, for the companies such as MS could not afford to produce them, they would not make any money from licencing. Sadly the issue here is quite different. This is about people pirating games. I am all for Mod-Chips that don't allow people to pirate games, such as the Cromwell Linux bios. This guy is selling ModChips that are being used for illegal purposes, thats the beef I and the rest of the game industry have with it. He is making a few bucks and the industry is losing thousands, not a wonderful trade off. Enough said.
"You can't kill me, you can't kill me, you can't k..."
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
I'd identify a lot more with the guy quoted if he was making an effort to design his modchip so that it CAN'T play pirated games while still retaining the ability to boot Linux and play import games, something I'm sure is possible. As it is, the only reason he's thumping his chest and thumbing his nose at Microsoft is because he has the [probably reasonable] belief that Microsoft can't touch him while he's protected by Australian law. That earns him no more respect from me than would a punk calling me names on the street while hiding behind his buddy, Mike Tyson.
Shacknews2 7288
i ty/story/0, 2000048600,20275965-1,00.htm
p hp3?date=2003-06 -30
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/
ZDnet Australia
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/secur
Penny-Arcade
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.
Sorry guys and gals but I don't know how to make a link.
Never Underestimate A Human Being
In the days before Raymond's campaign to change the language that geeks/nerds/hackers use, a cracker was somebody who sngle stepped through old copy protected games to defeat the copy protection, usually by inserting a jump or NOPs at the critical point where the copy protection scheme kicked in. Often these cracked games would have a modified splash screen that would say 'Cracked by so-and-so' giving credit to the cracker who liberated the game.
Eric S. Raymond is on a campaign to change the meaning of the terms that we have always used, but his attempt to sully the reputation of the term 'cracker' is misguided and historically revisionist.