Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Auto-Update Blocks Linux Usage
An anonymous reader writes "According to The Inquirer, Microsoft has used their Xbox Live Vole System to patch any Xboxes that access it....without asking their permission before installing the software. However, in this occurrence, the bug appears to be the 'dashboard bug' that allows Linux to be easily installed on an Xbox. Further, according to The Xbox Linux Project, users who do not have an Xbox Live account may find themselves being patched without permission as well. If a gamer tries to access any part of a game that uses Xbox Live, the console can 'phone home' and install the patches anyway. While patching bugs can be a nice touch to poor software, I don't know if I feel comfortable with ANYONE installing software on my hardware without asking permission first."
I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft decides to start putting these patches on the game discs themselves. The first time you load the game, it patches your system. Of course, me writing this could very well give them that idea.
Sorry for the reply to my own post but I wanted to point out an example of what I mean:
Many years ago I purchased one of those APEX 600-A DVD players with the loophole menu. About a month after I got it, it wouldn't power on. I took it back to get repairs under warantee. When I got it back, I found that the firmware had been upgraded to a newer one that removed the loophole menu. I complained to Circuit City but they told me there was nothing I could do.
Ultimately, I disputed the charge on my credit card arguing they had not given me the product I paid for. The credit card company agreed with me and gave me a refund that I used to buy a second APEX player.
So, on that line...what if you are one of the unluckies that has his XBox self-patch? If you paid with a credit card, why not dispute it?
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
...EULAs of this Xbox sort are illegal. Maybe we'll be seeing some court action in the coming weeks? It's my understanding that companies can't write these kind of intrusive clauses into their EULAs and then expect to get away with them in the EU. And with EU recently pounding Microsoft's ass, I wonder if this will be another thing to add onto their list...
I know they're invalid in most part here in Quebec. Essentially unenforcable.
You see, there's this point of contract law that's important here: that a contract is only valid if it can be read and signed by the party before at the time of sale. Any subsequent conditions, clauses, or contract modifications are null unless agreed by both parties. Once I've paid for Windows, it's mine. I can do what I can with it. Once I buy my Xbox it's mine (supposition here, I don't own an xbox and am not interested in buying one). I never signed any contract at the register allowing Microsoft to modify it without my permission, nor was there a mention of that on the box.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Most would still buy it (and I bet lots of them would think you were nuts)... normal people don't give a damn.
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched. Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that. I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
Expect trying to connect to Xbox Live with a modified machine to GET YOUR MACHINE BANNED FROM XBOX LIVE FOREVER.
1. Get a mod chip that generates all possible sequences of machine IDs.
2. In protest of this policy connect with such a mod chip, get all x-boxes banned.
3. Profit?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Okay how about this then, once you have bought the machine you can do whatever the hell you want with it. It is your property, not MS's not the store you bought it from, not your next door neighbours.
The idea that MS can claim ownership on the machines ONCE THEY ARE SOLD is dangerous in the extreme.
Oh and by the way, any company that tries to install software without asking permission is installing spyware as far as I am concerned, that goes for Gator, MS and any other pos company that tries it.
Cant you like sue MS for illegally breaching a computer system that you own? kinda reminds me of the terrorist act or whatever it was... oh PATRIOT act! yeah, now THAT would be funny, M$ getting sued for terrorist activites.... breaking into privatley owned boxenz at someones residence & "installing unauthorized" software :D
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
Build a time machine and go back to murder whoever initiated the deal to purchase bungee, then buy it for the PC the way it was originally planned.
Bungie was one of the few Mac only game houses that produced good games for the mac all the way back to my first first person shooter, Marathon. Most people don't realize, but Halo was announced for the Mac. If you look here you can find links to the video of the premere of Halo for the mac at Macworld '99 New York. I was at that keynote when Steve Jobs introduced the 2 minute movie for Halo rendered using the game engine in real time, not pre recorded. I almost creamed my pants. I remember thinking to my self that this was the game that was finaly going to bring the Mac into the gaming arena. Even my PC using Mac bashing friend who I dragged with me was drooling over it. Alas, before it's Macintosh release, Microsoft bought out bungie and made them the "X-Box Development Team". That was a sad day for us Apple people all over. Bungie was known in the mac community as a top noch developer of mac games including one of our first first-person shooters, Marathon. At least you can still pick up the Bungie Mac Action Sack and try some of the awsome games this company once made for the macintosh.
-= Who are The Headlocks? =-
People are getting their panties in a bundle because Microsoft is fixing bugs in their software and auto-patching. How else are they going to try to keep this stuff patched? Otherwise they end up with a hundred-and-one different XBox software versions out there.
Perhaps Microsoft should put in patches the way that the rest of the game consoles do it - you put the updated libraries onto the individial game discs that need them.
Using the hard drive to hold patches just brings us back to Windows DLL Hell. This is considered acceptable on a desktop, but on a game console, it can be the death of the machine. People tolerate crashes on their PC's, they don't tolerate them on game machines.
Microsoft should not be patching the XBox's without notifying the user if they use the hard drive in such a way. If my favorite game was no longer playable because of an update, I'd be super pissed.
This was one major issue that we support engineers discussed around Sega. We concurred that using the hard drive for holding the operating system would be problematic, as would automatic patching.
-- Joe
Ah that explains everything.
It was in the EULA I signed when I purchased it.
Oh, no EULA to sign when I purchase it? Well, it must be clearly printed on the side of the box where I can see it when I purchase it.
Oh, no EULA there either? Well, how about when I open the box the XBox itself has a big EULA taped over the power button that I have to read.
Nope, not one there either. Well, when I first turn it on, I have to agree, right?
Nope, guess not.
So where exactly is this magical EULA I've agreed to "even without buying Live?"
Search 2010 Gen Con events
What MS are doing is quite probably against the law. If an XBox is considered to be a computer, then they are in clear violation of Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which states [emphasis mine] that:
3.-(1)A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a)he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b)at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
(3)The intent need not be directed at-
(a)any particular computer;
(b)any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c)any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
(5)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.
(6)For the purposes of the [1971 c.48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.
(7)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
So, according to section 3 subsection 4, If you did not give Microsoft explicit permission to modify your XBox, but they deliberately changed some software or data on it to stop you doing something, then they have quite probably broken the law. You may not have automatically authorised the modification merely by opening the box, see Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 for my reasoning {note that certain sections would not be valid in respect of a software licence}, but I am no lawyer.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!