Slashdot Mirror
Man Convicted For Hacking Xbox
PipianJ writes "Remember the ruling in Britain which outlawed mod chips last year? BBC News is reporting that a man has been convicted of modding an Xbox and sentenced to 140 hours of community service, a fine of 750 pounds (about $1300), and the confiscation of his PCs and Xboxes." From the article: "The man had been selling modified Xbox consoles which he fitted with a big hard drive containing 80 games. 'This case sets a major precedent which marks a milestone in the fight against piracy,' said games industry spokesman Michael Rawlinson." Update: 07/04 22:12 GMT by Z : Updated to more accurately discuss the story.
He probably would've been pretty safe if he didn't sell them - I think they would've had a pretty tough time convicting him if it had just been some guy who chipped his own xbox at home for personal use.
(BTW: For those who havn't done it, modding an xbox is so easy that virtually anyone can do it. It actually takes longer to take the thing apart than it does to install the modchip and a bigger HD).
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
It really doesn't matter, if my understanding of the legal system is even vaguely close to accurate, as to whether the person was "guilty" of software piracy, if he was in fact prosecuted under a different law entirely. What matters is what the judge ruled on, how and why.
For example, if the judge said something along the lines of "the piracy was the offence, and the xbox mods were an aggravating factor", then I don't think there's anything to be too concerned about.
On the other hand, if it was the reverse of that, that the mods were the offence, and the piracy was an aggravating factor, then there could be some implications, as that would imply that the piracy was merely a detail that made things worse, in the eyes of the law.
Without clearer information on exactly what was said, and without some input from a legal expert who can give some interpretation, it's very hard to see what exactly this case means. However, if the latter idea (ie: mods are bad) is correct, then what we're seeing is probably the "worse possible case". In other words, someone who was caught selling modded boxes only would not be likely to get anything worse.
Of course, the whole thing might be thrown out on appeal. The appeals process would go to the appeals court, then eventually to the House of Lords, and (if necessary) to the European Court of Human Rights. The House of Lords has a lot of grudge matches going with the House of Commons at the moment, so don't expect them to be sympathetic to the Government. The EU is in an even worse mood, so if it gets to them, almost anything could happen - and probably will.
This is not like America, where the Government can throw around impeachment threats, whenever the Supreme Court rules against them. The Law Lords cannot be impeached by the sitting Government and have pretty much free reign to decide how they like. They are supposed to rule by the law, but when they get seriously narked by Government attitudes, they're just as likely to rule in retaliation.
Most likely, it won't go to appeal, as the fine isn't super-huge and community service is unlikely to involve the rooftop of Stangeways, or the insides of Dartmoor's equally notorious prison. Depending on how many boxes were sold, he might easily cover the costs of the computers and the fines from his "income".
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Almost every time I have ever seen the BBC run an article covering some kind of clash between technology and the desires of large traditional commercial copyright holders, they seemed to have gone absolutely out of their way to slant the article in favor of the copyright holders.
I don't follow the BBC closely and I don't really know much about their normal news coverage. But it seems that on this one set of subjects they seem incapable of or unwilling to write a balanced article.
Somehow I don't think it's just a coincidence that the BBC is, itself, a large traditional commercial copyright holder.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
precedent on Xbox modding is grossly mistaken. What we have here is a seller of pirated software that happened come with a modded Xbox. He deserves no sympathy and did a disservice to those in the "modding community" who are simply enthusiasts who like to see what their hardware can do (Installing Linux for instance). As a matter of fact, his sentence when compared to others convicted of software piracy may well be lenient. What isn't mentioned is just how many he sold. With the amount of information available on the web for modding Xboxes, I doubt he would have been noticed if not for the piracy. What this WILL do is drawn more attention on those with more modest goals. What he did was WRONG, and don't give me some "fight the power" garbage. BTW, I believe in fair use.
"Build something idiot proof, and someone will build a better idiot" - Samuel Clemens
Modifying hardware is illegal here in the UK, sadly.h ip_win/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/21/ps2_mod_c
/. is good for you.
Good old-fashioned piracy is actually still going on! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy . "Seaborne piracy against transport vessels remains a significant problem (with estimated worldwide losses of $13 to $16 billion USD per year)"
Except now they're using AK-47s.
...or so I've been told.
An accusation of piracy used to be a very big deal. There was usually hanging involved. Your quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay even backs this up. He doesn't call the booksellers 'pirates'. He calls them 'piratical'. The difference being that he is accusing them of having something in common with real pirates, not being real pirates.
Using the term to refer to copyright infringement is roughly as accurate as using the term 'Child Molester' or 'Fluffy Rabbit'.
Unfortunately, it seems the powers-that-be have successfully inserted the term into the language as a means to refer to the infringers of copyright as a sort of pre-emptive argumentum ad hominem .