Slashdot Mirror
Xbox Modders Charged Under DMCA
JamesAlfaro wrote to mention a News.com article about a pair of game store owners charged with Xbox modding. From the article: "Jason Jones and Jonathan Bryant, two Los Angeles residents who own the ACME Game Store on Melrose Ave., allegedly sold Xbox game systems that had been modified by Pei Cai, of Pico Rivera, Calif. Cai allegedly equipped the Xbox consoles with modification chips and large hard drives to allow the user to copy rented or borrowed games onto the device for future playback. Buyers would pay from $225 to more than $500 for the changes."
Gods, that thing is an abomination. It seems like anybody can be charged for just about anything the big companies don't like.
a mod chip becomes a copyright protection circumvention device when that's what you use it for.
But will that be the standard the DMCA uses? Or will it be more like "a mod chip becomes a copyright protection circumvention device when that's what you can use it for."?
That's why this case is so troubling...it has the potential to become a very bad precedent, and ruin mod-chipping for everyone. It doesn't help that these jerks were also distributing pirated games, making the case a virtual slam-dunk and cementing the 'mod-chipping == piracy' stereotype in the minds of everyone concerned.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
No matter how you look at it, people are still up against hard time for simply copying and modding stuff. No, there is still plenty to say because, like as with most copyright related "crimes". These people are not criminals, and the punishment is WAY WAY out of line in relation to the supposed harm done to society.
Now if in addition they robbed a bank, and beat an old lady and left her for dead ... then I might have some sympathy, but then again that wouldn't be charged as a DMCA crime would it?
Just whose XBox is it? If I paid for it then I should be able to do as I wish with it. Doctrine of First Sale -- Microsoft loses any further control over it. Yeah, if they want to get me for pirating games that's a charge they can take to court, BUT there should not be allowed any case against modding.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
No shit.
Devil's in the details eh?
They sold the agent a bunch of pirated games, duh.
Or maybe the Mod was $265 and the pirated games were free so no one got hurt, right? There is no way you could say it was for convenance by this point.
Now if i could figure out why they can advertised remote car starters in a town that gives you ticket for leaving a running car unattended. How on earth is that not promoting an illegal activity?
"It disturbs me we as a society equate morals with laws. Yes laws do include legislation of morality and have for centuries, but also legislates how we properly do business which has no basis or common ethics or Christian teachings."
You bring up a good point that I hadn't even realised. I hadn't applied the prospect to copyright compared to theft. If I compare copyright infringement to theft of tangible goods I find that the theft of goods deprives a person or a group of persons of a thing, which is a thing that that person or group of persons cannot sell, use, or otherwise decide a fate over. Software isn't a thing, in that nothing physical from the original creator of the software is required in order for anyone to have access to the software, so "theft" isn't the proper term.
I don't personally play video games anymore. I haven't since the days of Quake II. If I had copies of copyrighted software but didn't use them it would be no different than if I didn't have them at all. This distinction becomes important because ideas like software, music, movies, television shows, and the like are all contributions to culture, and in my opinion culture is much too important to let anyone control for too long, and I also believe that if a group chooses to contribute to culture in order to profit by it then they should lose some hold over that which is their contribution. It becomes culture's property, and thus public domain, rather than remaining excluive to the creator.
It appears that my ideas aren't supported by the majority of people right now, unfortunately, and continued copyright extensions are proof enough of that.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In this case, the modchip actually was used for pirating games, so that's why it would be included in the charges. There are about 2 or 3 stories like this that pop up each year and the editors always seem to omit the fact that software piracy was involved.
Indeed. They have every right to charge you under the DMCA for modding with the intent of violating copyright...if you violated copyright.
Suppose there was a practical law that actually allowed medical marijuana. It's like if they pull over your car and find you stoned, you can't argue that the weed you're carrying with you was for medicinal purposes and get out of possession charges that way. If they find you sober but carrying weed in a hospital, they can't prosecute you though.
Just like that. You mod the Xbox and install OpenOffice.org on the harddrive, you're okay. You just sell it with Cromwell, they probably won't care. You sell it with 70 times 7 modded games, there's no way you can say the modchip was for legitimate purposes.
Please don't make that analogy. It should "It's ok to make a copy of that candy bar from MEGA Grocery Store but just don't make a copy of that candy bar from Joe's Corner Market." Personally, I make copies of candy bars all the time.
that also brings up another interesting point, Both Mega Corp & Joe's sell things that let you create your own things, Yet both stores sell the item already made (say in this case Cookies).
Mega corp has all the items you would need to make a certain set of cookies, yet just a couple isles down they sell the exact cookies you are planning on making. Does this mean that Mega Corp is contributing to the theft of the cookie companies out there?
same goes for Joe's, they don't carry as many ingrediants as Mega does but they do carry enough & they sell the same cookies you are planing on making, does this fall under theft? since you are making your own but it was provided to you from someone else.
you are taking money away from the company (or people depending on the cookies) that make the cookies since you are making your own "copies".
Harsh punishment for minor offence is not always wise.
During the frirst all-China empire Qin, legalist Li Si held a great power and established harhs penalty for any minor crime. A group of peasants was drafted for labor service. Heavy rains made his group late in reporting for duty. Knowing they would be killed for this offense, the group members decided they had nothing to lose and became an outlaw band. Soon their ranks swelled with thousands of malcontents, making the band of outlaws a sizeable force. Similar uprisings took place simultaneously in other parts of the empire, and empire Qin collapsed.
reference here
it may be offtopic, but in europe xbox1 gets modded a lot. And IMHO it's about 5% modding it for playing "pirated games".
Again: In general you mod xbox'es _not_ for playing pirated games.
You mod it for this:
http://www.xboxmediacenter.de/
and for this
http://www.xbox-emulation.co.uk/
I don't even see where this is newsworthy. The guys sold modded xbox's....that's legal... They sold them with a larger hard drive...legal again... They included 77 pirated games...illegal.... Next....