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."
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.
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.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has ruled that modchips are perfectly legal. So, his belief that he is protected by Austalian law is certainly reasonable.
So, all he is saying is: "Stop making vague threats and actually sue me, Microsoft", because he knows that if they do, they won't have a leg to stand on.
He's not hiding behind Australian law, he's simply saying that Microsoft's allegations about modchips being illegal is FUD - and he wants to get the matter settled once and for all, so that modchip users and designers in Australia can stop fearing Microsoft's bullying tactics.
If Microsoft took him to court, and he won, it would be perfectly reasonable for a LikSang style company to open in Australia and trade without fear of prosecution.
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.