Slashdot Mirror
The Hacker Behind "Hacking the Xbox"
chromatic writes "ONLamp has just published an interview with Andrew "Bunnie" Huang, author of Hacking the Xbox. Bunnie discusses the effect of the DMCA on his work and the state of Xbox hacking as he sees it."
It should be, as long as it is not used to run, say, copied games. Microsoft and the DMCA are bastards, who don't seem to know the difference between LEGAL/ETHICAL, and ILLEGAL/UNETHICAL. I don't have an XBox personally, but if I did, I'd be hacking it.
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
I mean, 733Mhz processor, GeForce 2/3 graphics, the technology is getting rather long in the tooth by today's standards. By the time they actually get a bootable Linux running on this thing, it'll almost be cheaper to just buy a used machine off of eBay...
I know people are going to argue this, but by the time you consider the thousands upon thousands of man-hours put into trying to crack the thing, it's just not worth it.
No, but it does include your Amazon account number... posted in a story about hacking too ;)
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
"You think it has anything to do with the fact that it's a Microsoft product (the Dreamcast itself booted off a version of Windows CE, for example)?"
It did have a Windows CE logo, almost none of the game used it cause it's crap, and the reason the Dreamcast was such a cool platform was the SH-4 CPU and the fact that it required no modchip to boot games.
No it's not a conspiracy against Microsoft. Of course some people pirate games, but they always will, modchip or not.
There are actually people who enjoy fooling around with hardware.
Once you boot linux through the AUF hack, can't you copy the files you need to boot the xbox from there? I mean that's how the swap trick works kinda, except you have linux running on some OTHER machine (booted from CD) with the proper patch for support for the Xbox's filesystem.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1) install modchip in xbox
2) borrow/rent games and copy them
3) play copies of games
oh, and alternately
4) install linux
: p
Microsoft has just announced two security updates for the XBox gaming system. According to Microsoft, these exploits could be used to make you trip over your shoelaces in Halo.
The other vulnerability could let hackers fill your hard drive with MP3s over CmdrTaco singing.
The second patch is considered extremely important.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
I really don't get it...
Why hack the xbox? I mean even if the boxes are being subsided by M$ it's still a crappy computer.
Only reason I see to hack the thing is to play cracked games...
If you want a cheap home server build a small, fanless (silent), low power consumption (cheap in the long run) VIA mini-itx (small and quite cheap) box.
+ Timesave NOT to hack the Xbox.
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
In case you haven't seen it yet, they have low-end machines that are comparable, already running Linux, for about $200.
IANAFETG (I Am Not A Fry's Employee, Thank Goodness)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
what about the gaming console for the Gay american? the XY Box?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
It's never "Bunnie"-- always "bunnie". Even on the book jacket (both versions).
Andrew Huang hacked the x-box over a year ago, and managed to find the key to sign software to run on the xbox isn't this the key that the linux for xbox community has been looking for? Even though Huang has said he wouldn't share the key with anyone, presumably people can reproduce Huang's method for extracting the key. please someone clarify... I'm confused.
I don't know when this interview was actually published, but I think it must have been a while ago-- "Hacking the Xbox" was picked up by No Starch Press, and it appears to be still published by them...
ORN: So what have you been playing lately on your Xbox?
BH: Linux. I don't use my Xbox to play games.
I used to own a copy of Dead or Alive 3, but I gave that to a friend after I got bored of it. I also tried Halo once and bored of it pretty quickly. I tend to play the Nintendo GameCube the most; its games are the most fun. I am still working on beating the new Zelda.
Why would you buy one of these to put linux on? If your not playing games wiht it why not do one of the following:
1) Use a small older computer from ebay and install linux
2) Build a computer and install linux
3) Buy a PS2 with the Linux Kit
4) Buy a dreamcast and burn your linux boot cd
And even then WHAT IS THE POINT? It seems like people just do this because THEY CAN and are not asking whether they SHOULD be doing this?
And I still don;t see the use for it. What are you possibly going to do with Linux on an Xbox that you couldn't do with Linux on your computer?
enlighten me please.
Ave Molech Setting
long live the ybox
I think the XX-Box is a lot more fun to play with.
(sorry)
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The debate on why you should bother modding an XBox comes up quite frequently, but most people can't seem to get pass the "Q: Why Bother A: WaR3z / Linux" debate. I use my modded XBox as a media player... and it really is very very good. All my MP3s and films (all legal of course!) sit on my pc and the media is streamed down to the XBox. The XBox, in turn, is plugged into my home cinema equipment via an optical connection. Since I don't own a dedicated DVD player or one of those fancy hifi mp3 players, the XBox does the job perfectly and with the added advantage that I can play games on the thing. Sure, I could use a shuttle pc or something, but why bother? An XBox, even included the cost of a mod chip and the remote control, is going to be much less than the cost of a "proper" peecee. Besides, its really nice having the remote control for it.
That Microsoft is losing money on every Xbox sold. Planning to make it up on game sales doesn't really work if people mod it for use as a home computer. What this will probably lead to is more expensive systems and less expensive games, which I don't really mind. If the DMCA prevents this, there is always a NES mod or two to fool around with.
Will kernel 2.6 include Zapper support?
Would KDE or Gnome have cooler support for that...
SAILING MISHAP
I was just reminded of that story a while ago about these kids hacking the xbox and sorta trying to blackmail microsoft. Anyone know what happened?
the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
No, but it does include your Amazon account number... posted in a story about hacking too ;)
:D
Thank you. You made my evening. Laughed my ass off.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Yeah, I am. It works pretty good considering the hardware. I heard of a guy that constructed one for the college he was attending. I think it was in Kansas, but I am not entirely sure. The XBOX is a great thing to be using under linux.
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
After all, SOMEONE has to build the modchips.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
From the interview, Bunnie Huang said:
We should encourage people to buy the book in addition to getting their copy electronically (for those that haven't read the article, the book is licensed under a Creative Commons license that will allow scanning the book in and distributing electronic copies). This is a great chance not only to show how the DMCA stifles free speech but to point out the hypocrisy of thinking of electronic distribution of information is somehow less worthy of free speech protection than traditional paper books. Huang is probably right that paper books enjoy more free speech protection than electronic distribution and that is sad.
In an effort to make this book easier to find and buy, visit this site and support presses that help society freely distribute information. If you have objections to buying from Amazon (who is listed on isbn.nu's price index), there are other places with better prices and availability. Buying direct from the press gives the press the most money.
Digital Citizen
Oh, you mean 'dumping'. Such a practice is immoral and in some cases (that means 'not all'), it is illegal. In some countries (big ones, not the ones smaller than my backyard), it is illegal entirely. And no, there is no right to play pirated games, but there is a right to run every LEGAL piece of software on your XBOX, which excludes my pirated copy of Halo, but does certainly not exclude Linux.
Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact
/. is a matter of consumer rights versus manufacturer's rights - if a product substantially similar in the marketplace were available that did not have these hinderances, do you think that it would not be applauded by the slashdot crowd? Basically you're getting a device that Microsoft chose to sell at less than production cost. Under their contract, am I required to purchase additional games from them? No? Then what reason do they have to force me?
/.
And the after the fact part is substantial. You payed money for a substantial physical peice of property - and by that element, you "own" that particular physical peice of property. There is no license, you are not reproducing it or taking from the manufacturer's IP and redistributing it, you are "tweaking" it to suit your own needs.
The prevalent attitude on
The DMCA is the problem here, not the product that is being shipped, because without the law, they still would be producing and selling XBOX's, presumably exactly as they currently are. The legal implication that what I own outright is under someone else's terms and condtions is the prevalent problem frequently disussed here on
Anyways... The producer has the right to produce and offer a product for whatever terms it feels satisfactory, but remember that it's for sale. If I buy an XBox, the very presumption by Microsoft that they have any miniscule right to control what I do with it is ludicrous. This is not concerning copyright infringement or anything similar. I legally own the XBox and should theoretically possess the right to use it as I see fit. (Yeah, yeah, assuming not illegal, dangerous, terroristic activity, etc..)
Does this mean Microsoft should not have the right to attempt to secure it? Of course not. If Microsoft wants to obfuscate the XBox to hell so that nobody would want to program for it, I don't care. They obviously have the right. This is irrelevent to the fact that I can do whatever I want with my property, and if somebody wants to put 200 hours into writing a pong emulator for, more power to them.
Finally, your argument seems flawed in the simple fact that the economy isn't run around what is good for Microsoft. We have a capitalistic economy last I checked, and if Microsoft's business plan is sinking faster than the Edmund Fitzgerald, why is it a good thing to have repressive laws that allow Microsoft to perpetuate this? The consumer buys what the consumer wants. If Microsoft can't pull a profit because the consumer wants Sony games, Microsoft needs to get with the program. -dave
I don't see why running copied games is okay. The issue is not using it to run illegally copied games. I think that should you extend fair use laws to appropriately cover video games, you would have every right to use them without the original media, so long as someone else is not using the same media at the same time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the seller don't want people to modify their stuff, they should make the buyer sign a contract when doing the sale. It is definitely unfair for the customer (even if legal) if they use click-through EULAs or unknown-by-joe-public laws such as DMCA.
Nonono, didn't you watch the movie? After Neo used the key to gain access to the Architect, the hall of doors blew up, meaning that having the key would be worthless anyways. Oh wait, you meant the key to the X-box?
Your arguments are so flawed I don't know where to start.
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy
Selling a product at a loss does not give you a right to make a profit. If Gillete's razors were (apart from being razors) also very good at cleaning dirt from hooves (or whatever), people might have used it for that, and that alone and Gilette would have been lost to history.
He gambled on his product and he won - big time. Good for him!
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
This is the most absurd argument yet. Buying an XBox makes me responsible for Microsofts profit and potential loss of jobs??
What if I buy an XBox and use it as a door-stop. Am i now obliged to buy XBox games which I will never use, because otherwise Microsoft will have it's right to profit empeded? Or is not buying products you don't need unpatriotic now?
but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all.
this is in fact how sales work, if you don't agree with the terms there is no sale and this goes for both the selling and the buying side.
Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
So right and yet so wrong. The sale is already done! These people have bought an XBox from Microsoft, who agreed to sell it to them at a loss. Microsof has no right to demand how people use their products, especially not -- after the fact.
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
I think perhaps it is time for a sidebar; it seems relevant to this story given the position many seem to be supposing.
"The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all."
Yes, because it is we who set the terms on which those privileged entities, corporations, may profit and prosper within our great nation.
Corporations are permitted to exist in that manner which and only for a time which pleases us and benefits us.
Do you understand perfectly what we are saying? Corporate and powerful private interests have no right or expectation to exploit the great majority that they might raise themselves up over and against their peers.
The state of things is as it is only so far and for so long as we permit it to be. These corporate and powerful private interests have nothing we have not allotted them for a time and for limited purposes, and through our rich democratic process we may just as easily take it again from them when and so far as they abuse it.
We are not pawns. We control our own destiny. Our rights will be respected.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Because they sell it to us. It then becomes ours. That means we can do what we want with it including use as gift, doorstop, trash it, destroy it, reverse engineer it, whatever.
If they want to make ms only hardware then they can rent or lease it and handle the cost of churn and upkeep themselves. Why don't they?
Because it is not worth it. That must mean that ms only hardware is not worth doing past what they are doing right now.
Simple really.
Blogging because I can...
This should have been marked as "Funny" instead of insightful. This guy was obviously illustrating absurdity by behaving in an absurd manner.
There is no argument that can be made that any company has a right to have their marketing strategy or business model succeed. If my business model is that I develop my own cologne and require a license for people to smell it, then sue everyone who uses an unlicensed nose to smell my cologne, I have no right to have that model succeed. I have the right to try it, but no right to success.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Philosopically, the simple answer to your question is property rights. If I pay the 200 dollars for that physical piece of hardware then I own it. The plastic case? Mine. The GPU? Mine. The CPU? Mine. The only thing in that chunk of crap that wouldn't be mine is the code in the firmware. Even then, the only things I really can't do with it is distribute copies or derivative works.
If I can make that chunk of crap + firmware behave in ways it isn't designed to well.....it's mine isn't it? As long as I paid for as in not rented that X-Box and don't use illegal copies of games then I have done nothing unethical.
There is nothing sacred about a business model. Business models do not trump property rights. Since I can buy (not rent) an X-Box in ordinary retail establishments then I have every right to do whatever I want with it. The person behind the cash register doesn't make me sign a contract before I walk out with it.
If MS raises the price on account of this and the apocalypse ensues, fine. That means it was a stupid business model. Does MS have a right to behave stupidly because they employ people? Was Digital Convergence entitled to millions because they gave cheesy bar-code scanners away with Shack catalogs? Every dot bomb business that went under had a business model. It didn't entitle them to anything and yes a lot of people lost their jobs over it. IT businesses got burned and the ones that survived got a bit wiser. Nobody seriously suggested forcing people to abdicate their property rights.
Your next thought may be "Don't buy an X-Box then if you won't use it the way MS intends". It's my money. It's those pesky individual property rights again. If I want to make a media player out of it then that is my business. If MS wants to diddle the X-Box to make that difficult, fine. But if I can get around the diddling then thats fine too.
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all.
The problem is that Microsoft is confusing "goods" with "service." In the case of software, it is intellectually questionable whether software is a particular thing, or just a license to use a concept that someone else has developed. Consequently, some software is "sold" and other software is "licensed."
Now consider a cell phone. I could go buy a SonyEricsson P800 for about $700. But without a service plan it would be a fairly useless device. Sure it can do 640x480 pictures and send them over bluetooth, but for $700 I expect a lot more. Instead, I buy a Nokia 3650 from ATT Wireless for $150 plus around $90 in monthly service fee (I talk on the phone a lot). ATT has locked my phone so that I cannot switch providers during the term of my contract. Since I'm getting a phone that is worth close to $700 for $150 and a monthly service fee, this is reasonable -- I still owe ATT some value for the use of their device.
Now consider a Rolex watch. Suppose the price of gold went up so much that it was profitable to buy Rolexes and melt them down for their gold. People would flock to jewelry stores to get the gold watches and sell off the gold. Rolex might be angry, but it is really their fault for not analyzing the gold market carefully enough.
Finally, consider an XBox. Microsoft wants to sell XBoxes for $199 so that you can play their $60 games. I want to open my XBox up and put Linux on it. It happens that Microsoft paid arund $350 to make each XBox, so if I don't buy a few games, MSFT loses out. Should I cry for Microsoft's lost profits? no.
Now if Microsoft had sold me the console for $199 plus a monthly fee I might consider using it according to MSFT's guidelines. They are selling a good but treating it like a service. I will continue to treat it like a good that I own. You can treat it like a service if you want.
Microsoft's biggest blunder here is not that they are treating a good like a service, but that they are alienating a small but influential portion of the gaming public. A few geeks want to open up their Xboxes and mess around with them. The vast majority of gamers are going to buy some Xbox games and make Microsoft even more money (once they get past the startup expenses, of course). If Microsoft took a more postivie attitude, XBox console and game sales would probably increase.
Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games? Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Here's why. First, let's say that we're all OK with Microsoft, or any other company for that matter, making any kind of product they choose, and for any specific purpose.
Instead of talking about an Xbox and hacking it to do different things, I'd like to mention a few other things to help illustrate my point.
What if I decide to use climbing carabiners for some purpose other than climbing, such as hanging a hammock in the backyard? What about using climbing line to hang my laundry? How about using a stack of telephone books (or Physics books) to prop my monitor up a little higher off of my desk? What about using cinder blocks and planks of wood to make a simple bookshelf? What if you use a grocery bag to put trash in? How about using a bedsheet to cover your furniture while you're painting the inside of you apartment/house? What about using a fishing tackle box to store nuts and bolts? What if I decide to take a nap in the back seat of my car? What do you think of using Coca Cola to clean corroded battery terminals?
I'm not trying to troll here, I really am attempting to make a point. I think a manufacturer has every right to design, build, market and sell whatever the heck they want. But when a consumer makes a purchase, I do not think it is fair for the manufacturer to have anything to do with enforcing a specific usage.
Now, obviously, there could be issues of general safety and business abuse, and a company might need to protect themselves for liability or unfair competition. But I can't see the perspective that says Microsoft has any right whatsoever to dictate whether I play games on my Xbox, try to install Linux on it, or just use it as a doorstop.
Charge enough to cover your costs. What a novel idea. If I decide to buy an XBox at walmart right now, I get the XBox, a controller and two games. What if I decide not to buy anymore games? Those are the only two I want. What if I just want to copy all my CDs on to the XBox and use it to play all my music or DVDs? Not buy any games.
There is a great difference between building a business model with the consumers possible future needs in mind and building a business model with the consumers possible future needs as the primary avenue of money making.
If they want to sell me an XBox, fine. If they want to lease on to me, tell me at the store. Don't call it buying if I'm not allowed to use it as I see fit. Show me a contact that says I won't modify it. I promise you, I won't, but if I'm given new terms of agreement after I buy it, forget it. I'm doin it my way.
Course all I want to do with it, is okayed by Microsoft, so this was all just in theory....
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft have the right to invest in, design, manufacture, and sell a game machine that will play only Microsoft games?
They do have that right. They can manufacture and design it any way they like. They are perfectly free to make it very hard to get Linux or whatever running on it.
Why should you have a "right" to hack such a machine and run non-MS games or Linux on it?
Because you bought it and paid for it. It is your property and you should be able to do what you want with your property in your home without the thought-police after you. We live in what's supposedly a free society, and as such the rights of the indiviual are paramount.
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
Good! We don't want it to use this "razor blade strategy", using its large cash reseves to gain a monopoly in yet another market. If they can gain market share by making a better product, good for them. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
If one insists that one has a "right" to hack the XBox and run Sony games or Linux on it, Microsoft's response may be to raise the price of the XBox to at least the level of its marginal cost. Thus, consumers will wind up paying more for the same product. As a result, demand will go down, and this may result in unemployment and/or reduced wages.
Yes, let the market decide the price. As to the potential loss of jobs, which is worse: a few MS employees being laid off or transfered to other departments, or whole other companies going out of business when MS pushes them out of the market with their massive capital?
More philosophically, your post appears to represent an attitude of many people on Slashdot that I don't understand. The attitude appears to be that a producer does not have a right to produce and offer for sale a good or service on the terms it deems satisfactory, but instead must offer that good or service to you on terms you feel are satisfactory, or not at all. If a producer does offer a good or service on terms one deems to be unsatisfactory, one is perfectly free not to purchase it.
Why should the manufacturer be allowed to retain control of a product after you've purchaced it? What if your car manufacturer Y said you can only purchase fuel and repairs from Company X, a subsidiary of Y, who can charge you whatever they want? Again, you should be able to do whatever you want with your property. It's not a "sale" if you don't gain control of the item.
Instead, many insist on the right to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of sale -- after the fact.
Who's modifying the terms and conditions? The item's been sold. It's yours. Do what you want with your property. Or is it still the manufacturer's property? The law should be written for the benefit of the consumers, not the manufacturers, because unlike the manufacturers, most of us don't have billions of dollars to defend our rights.
"Screw causalilty!" -- Prof. Farnsworth
MS uses a layered crypto scheme...
1. At CPU reset a hidden ROM image inside the chipset decrypts the main BIOS flash image. This is the key Bunnie found.
2. The BIOS image then decompresses and decrypts the extended BIOS image using a key different from the one used in step 1.
3. This extended BIOS then loads the kernel from disk and validates it using yet another different key.
4. The kernel then uses yet another key to validate the games loaded off DVD-ROM. This would be the key everybody is after.
--Rob
I can't believe some people modded this Insightful. Since when are we, as consumers, responsible for M$ (or any company) and the business choices they make? They are using their monopoly to sell these things at a loss to try to take the market. They can do this because of the huge amount of cash they have. While I don't own an XBox and would never buy one, if i DID buy one, it is my property to do with as I like. I can throw it out, drop it out a window or give it to little Johnnie down the street. Basically what you are saying is the same as saying that Ford can sell you a car and then tell you that you are not allowed to modify the engine, to tinker with it, change the tires or use non-Ford parts. This is the dumbest thing I have heard all day, thanks for the laugh!
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
I know I am. Think about what is really happening here. This bunnie guy is having a hard time publishing a book because of commercial interests. Doesn't anyone else think that this reflects a sad state in a nation when books are being "banned" for commercial interests? Three publishers are/were interested in the book. One turned him down and the other two need to do legal research to see if it "violates" the DMCA. How much longer until the book burning? The DMCA is nasty and NEEDS to go down.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
The XBox kernel only verifies if a game loaded off the DVD-ROM was signed by a Microsoft key, it doesn't have the key to sign games.
In this signature scheme (public key), the key has two parts:
A note for anyone who doesn't already know - the upgraded dashboard (which has cool features and is a mandatory upgrade) has the bert & ernie font buffer overflow bugs fixed.
If you've software modded your Xbox, the code you used isn't the stealth code (which I don't think is public), and you are taking it online with Live, it'll de-mod your Xbox (at the very least), or possibly ban your Gamertag, credit card for future Gamertags, and MAC address.
Of course, while the Xbox you purchased belongs to you (goods), and the Xbox Communicator you (might have) purchased (might) belong to you (goods), you're morally (though not legally, but who gives a damn?) in the clear modding your own Xbox, no problem.
Take it online with Live though, and you're connecting to the Xbox Live service, a closed network created specifically to provide a secure homogeneous multi-player gaming platform so that all players could compete on a level playing field, no funny tricks. While I'm very heavily anti-DRM (i.e., I'm a cracker: no, not biscuit/kiddie, but deprotectionist) on public platforms (interoperability and all), this kind of closed gaming network is an interesting special use I'm quite happy with. Really the only people signing their modded Xbox onto Live are doing it because either (A) they want to cheat, or (B) they want to play copied games online. I have zero sympathy for either of these uses.
The Terms of Service, which definitely are enforceable, state very very clearly Xbox + Mod + Live = Ban.
If you want to mod your Xbox to make a cool media player, or because your kid sister scratches your game DVDs, bully for you - but play fair - buy another Xbox, and leave it unmodded, if you want to play on Live, please. Your kid sister shouldn't be on there anyway and remember that MS still lose money for every Xbox sold...
This one goes out to Stefan Esser, who really should know better. (See Full-Disclosure for background.)
One possible reason why it should not be legal to hack the XBox and run non-MS games or Linux on it is that it would effectively preclude Microsoft from adopting a modified razor blade strategy (pdf) (html) -- i.e., in this case, selling the XBox at a loss and making its profit on the sale of MS XBox games. This strategy is thwarted if Microsoft sells the XBox at a loss, only to have people use it to run Sony games or Linux.
In some countries (eg., Australia) exporting product for less than it cost to produce may be illegal in itself. Its called dumping, and when farmers from the EU do that, the US is the first to protect their own markets. Microsoft selling modified PC's at less than production cost isn't much different.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
i just want to note that USING something for an illegal, dangerous or terroristic activity is legal.. the ACTIVITY is illegal but not USING something FOR it. Semantics you may say.. but as far as i know you can't get hauled off into jail for USING a gun to kill someone, but for the actual ACT of killing someone.
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
A bit off topic, but it seems an awful stretch apply the DMCA to this book. The "trafficing" provisions of the DMCA only apply to a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof." (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=17&sec=1201)
None of these categories appear to cover a book, regardless of what it teaches. The anticircumvention provision would not apply either because the book itself doesn't circumvent anything (doing what it teaches might violate the law, but that's hardly new or unique). I suspect that the DMCA is being used as an excuse here.
How about... my box, my right to do as I wish with it?
Pretty simple, really...
you gotta have faith in GW Bush and BGates, and they will lead US to the promised land, where there are no icky terrorists or hackers...if only YOU'D OBEY!!!!!!!!!
Why bother unless you're looking to play pirated games? You can get a much better PC system for a couple hundred bucks that'll be faster and not have to "hack" it.
Just to get this discussion to go a little deeper, let me play advocatus diaboli: What about me? By the same argument used by dmaxwell, if I go into a store and buy a linux distribution that doesn't make me sign a license before using it, I do own the bits. So why should I not use it in a manner that it's authors didn't intend me to, and -for instance- incorporate bits of open source software into my closed source product? (The issue is, of course, not quite as clear cut as this, but I believe that this demonstrate that not having signed a license isn't the equivalent of not having to abide by one (and, if I am not mistaken, there's some language on the box stating that an owner has to abide by the inbox license))
Another equally rabble-raising scenario: I buy a gun and ammunition, remove the safety and file holes into the bulletpoints. Your reaction might be to say that now I am in clear violation of the law - but that's just what the DCMA is, too. So - is it ok to selectively choose which laws one respects?
Yeah, yeah, the X-Box is an x86 PC, what's the big deal in that?
Well, the X-Box is indeed x86, but it's far from ordinary. As explained by the X-Box Linux website, the X-Box has security features out of the ying-yang (a first from M$?). The challenge was not porting to an architecture, but making it work under new undocumented functions that've been added to it. See: embrace and extend (if you think about it, that's what Microsoft did for the X-Box, it applies to hardware now!).
The second thing about this being a big deal: it really strikes a blow in the whole "Trusted Computing" idea. Remember those security features? Those could easily mean that the X-Box is a "prototype" for TCPA (as someone else pointed out).
Perhaps I shouldn't have spent so much time on this, but... *shrugs*.
So likewise, it should be illegal to make generic razor blades that fit into other people's razors, and also illegal to use your razor for a purpose that doesn't lead to buying enough blades to make it profitable.
Microsoft has the right to make a game machine that only plays Microsoft games, but they didn't. They made a machine that can be made to play other things.
What you're asking is for us to ignore the reality of the situation, and indeed to make the law punish anyone who recognizes that reality.
As a general purpose PC you are right. However, the $199 PC will not have the comparatively high end graphical capabilities of the Xbox, nor TV-out.
An Xbox could be an incredibly fun toy to play with in this respect. "Hacking It" is not a chore to most of us here, but an enjoyable activity.
if I go into a store and buy a linux distribution that doesn't make me sign a license before using it, I do own the bits. So why should I not use it in a manner that it's authors didn't intend me to, and -for instance- incorporate bits of open source software into my closed source product?
As long as you don't distribute the resulting code, you're within your rights to combine the two for personal use. Neat, eh? This is analogous to you console hacking for personal use rather than game piracy.
I buy a gun and ammunition, remove the safety and file holes into the bulletpoints. Your reaction might be to say that now I am in clear violation of the law - but that's just what the DCMA is, too.
That just says to me that American gun laws are inconsistent. If the government is that concerned about safety, perhaps they shouldn't let arms companies flood the country with handguns. At any rate, not all laws should be regarded equally. Ideally the public will support laws they perceive as just, and undermine / ignore unjust laws. Most people jaywalk or share mp3s without a second thought, but would never dream of commiting murder.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Yes it is. A bunnie himself states, he hopes that if nothing else, it will inspire in others the urge to experiment with hardware. It reminded me of the Foulsham-Tab books that I used to drag home by the bagload from the library, in terms of his enthusiasm and informative approach, that actually inspires- even if you can't even think about the cost of some of the kit he has access to...
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.