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."

Comments

DMCA

[the linux geek]

Gods, that thing is an abomination. It seems like anybody can be charged for just about anything the big companies don't like.

Re:DMCA

[ToasterofDOOM]

Hold on, it wasn't mainly the modding that they got nailed for. If you RTFA'd or read about it earlier, they were selling the modded Xboxes with pirated games. I hate the DMCA as much as anyone else, but these guys are in the wrong here.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you read the article, but they aren't being charged for just about anything. These guys were not only modding an Xbox, but they were selling it with pirated games pre-loaded. Go sell it in another country that doesn't enforce copyrights, but selling it in Los Angeles? They are idiots and deserve whatever happens.

Re:DMCA

[RingDev]

These guys where ripping off thousands of dollars in software with each sale. Heck, if you coughed up $30 for each of the 77 video games they gave away with their modded box (for less then $500) you'd have to pony up over 2 grand. Realisticly it would be significantly higher then that. If they sold 100 fully loaded boxes they would have effectively ripped off a quarter million dollars from the publishers.

Rightly so these guys should be prosecuted.

-Rick

Re:DMCA

[Guspaz]

I was also going to post a similar expression of disgust, until I read this:

During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint."

No sympathy, then.

Re:DMCA

[dnoyeb]

Uhh damn! Looks like everyone has RTFA!?! I suppose the editors will have to take that into consideration next time they post a summary...

Re:DMCA

[frieko]

Just because th

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse than the DMCA and those who pirate was a company I worked for. They wanted me to remove names of open source software, license information and names of those who contributed so they could repackage it as their own creation. I of course objected and wouldn't you know it, I suddenly didn't receive a paycheck. I have hesitated to bring this up but I couldn't hold it back any longer. I no longer work for them not because of the missed pay checks but because of their insistance on repackaging software protected by GNU. My morals are sick because of this company. The company is named Secure Crossing which can be found at securecrossing.com...I think it is sick that company's try to get away with this...

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but they were charged under the DMCA, which on Slashdot automatically means their rights are being violated regardless of the facts in the case.

Re:DMCA

[Red Alastor]

Sure if people buying those Xbox were going to buy all those games. Most of them probably don't even like 80% of the games in there. I'm not saying it was right to put the games on the hard disk but that trying to calculate "losses" is misleading.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. You're evil. You are a foul, snot-eating beast. We all know that you masturbate to copies of the DCMA, that you dream of having anal sex with RIAA spokesmen. You are a foul worthless piece of filth, with someone else's cum dripping out of your engorged asshole.

Re:DMCA

[meanfriend]

Hold on, it wasn't mainly the modding that they got nailed for.

Yes it was. Read the article:

The three men are being accused of "conspiring to traffic in a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system and conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement," in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.

It sounds like that's exactly what they were busted for...

If you RTFA'd or read about it earlier, they were selling the modded Xboxes with pirated games. I hate the DMCA as much as anyone else, but these guys are in the wrong here.

Waitaminnit, we cant just say 'they broke the law and they deserve whatever they get'. We really need to look at this a little more deeply.

They illegally distributed 77 copies of games. You dont need the DMCA to bust people for that, copyright law already covers that infraction, right? So why invoke the unholy spectre of the DMCA?

These guys are facing 5 years prison for this. What sort of punishments would these dudes be receiving if they had sold modded Xboxen with no pre-loaded games? Or what if they had sold the 77 games on DVD-R, without also providing the mod-chips and hard-drives? IOW, are prosecuters using DMCA as a way of going after harsher punishments that would otherwise be impossible under plain-old copyright law?

Currently, mod-chips are technically illegal under the DMCA, but it begs the question 'Should mod-chips themselves be illegal'? If not, then doesnt that throw this whole story in a different light? These guys deserve punishment, without a doubt, but they deserve fair punishment.

That's why this topic should be discussed on slashdot. If you really hate the DMCA, as you claim, then you should closely examine every application of it.

oh yeah, IANAL etc etc.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't calculate how much they would have bought, you can calculate how much they had verses how much you could buy those for, hence, thats what they spout.

Re:DMCA

[javachip]

Gotta love a company name like that, considering what they did. I guess they hadn't considered that it's possible to make money without stealing. Sure offers a contrast to companies such as Google and Mindspring, who espouse (and seem to live up to their claims) that they can make money without resorting to "evil".

Re:DMCA

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand ... I do believe that there are far more serious crimes that could and should be investigated by said government officials, rather than wasting their time serving as a taxpayer-funded arm of the entertainment companies. Let those organizations pay for their own lawyers and investigators: frankly I don't want my tax dollars going for this.

However, what these guys were doing does come under the heading of "piracy", like it or not. They were selling copyrighted materials, for profit, without authorization from the rightsholders. So yeah, unlike your typical 13-year old copyright infringer these guys were true pirates and should suffer some consequences. However, as previous posters pointed out some rather severe civil penalties were already on the books for piracy. The legalized brutality of the DMCA serves absolutely no purpose but to breed further disrepect for the law.

Furthermore, this idea that products bought and sold on the open market can't be altered or modified just because the manufacturer doesn't like the idea is simply wrong. Property is property, and I resent being told that I can't take something I own apart and put it back together the way I want it.

Congress needs to get a grip.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa, thank god the one I bought from them was with cash!

Re:DMCA

[kimvette]

You DID report them on the gpl-violations mailing list, right?

Re:DMCA

[Guspaz]

Well, as I said, my sympathy only vanished when I read they were bundling the things with pirated games. If they were just modding the things and nothing else, I'd have no objections. If nothing else, Xbox Media Center is reason alone for a modded xbox. But they obviously weren't modding these things to be used for Limux and XBMC.

Re:DMCA

[mark-t]

They illegally distributed 77 copies of games. You dont need the DMCA to bust people for that, copyright law already covers that infraction, right? So why invoke the unholy spectre of the DMCA?

And right there you touch on the key reason why the DMCA is probably one of the stupidest laws to have ever seen the light of day.

In any genuinely legitimate case where the DMCA could reasonably be applied, the person being charged is already guilty of conventional copyright infringement completely independant of the DMCA.

So all the DMCA does is give them another thing to charge the guys with... although granted, it will probably take up less of the court's time to just deal with the DMCA charge than to examine the evidence for what would have otherwise been contemporary copyright infringement charges.

Re:DMCA

[carl0ski]

If FORD comes looking for me
you havent seen me
and
i didnt replace the 289" engine in my Falcon
with a
351" windsor engine.

Re:DMCA

[iainl]

I can just about agree with that argument when it comes to downloading crap from the net. But these people were actually handing cash over to a shop for the service. You can't use the "but I only took the illegal software because it was there; I wouldn't have bought it if that was the alternative" when you ARE paying money for it.

Re:DMCA

[alan.briolat]

These guys are facing 5 years prison for this. What sort of punishments would these dudes be receiving if they had sold modded Xboxen with no pre-loaded games? Or what if they had sold the 77 games on DVD-R, without also providing the mod-chips and hard-drives?

More to the point, that sentance shows how messed up the legal system (not justice system, that doesn't actually exist) is. People get more time for pissing off the big companies than they do for manslaughter, rape, and even murder in some cases. Face it, the companies own the people.

Re:DMCA

[iocat]

But, if someone distributed 77 pirated games with an Xbox, and it's important for us to presume these guys are innocent, of course, that could be taken as evidence that the mod chips' entire purpose was to circumvent legitimate copyright protections, versus, say, if someone had included 77 homebrew games.

Re:DMCA

[CastrTroy]

They often create laws just so they have more stuff to charge you with. For instance if you rob a store with a hand gun wearing a mask, they can change you with A) robbing the store, B) Committing a felony with a gun, even if the gun was not fired C) Wearing a mask while commiting a crime. There's probably some other things they could charge you with. Really all you did was rob a store, and use a weapon to intimidate the person. The mask was to try to stop them from catching you. But they are able to charge you with 3 things what is effectively 1 crime. The fact that crimes exist that are only crimes when done in conjunction with another crime shows that they are crimes. You are allowed to wear a mask and have a gun. But if you are doing these things while commiting a crime, they are also crimes. Seems like things just to lay more charges and have longer jail times.

Re:DMCA

[sealawyer2003]

For selling 77 games, the sellers could already be charged with a felony offense under the No Electronic Theft Act. Sometimes people forget that copyright law does have some criminal provisions. I don't know how much the games cost, but if the retail price were at least 33 bucks apiece (or on average), then the perps would run into the following provision: "shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500" At the 1000 dollar level, the sentence can be 1 year

Re:DMCA

[LifesABeach]

Wait a GD minute; The prosecution is going to put two well trained electronic technicians guilty of copy write infringement in a Federal lockup for 5 years? Next to some of the hardest assed human predator socialpathic criminal minds this land HAS to deal with? I thought there was a "no tolerance" policy on taking federally controled substances while working in the department of justice!

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Not saying that they were going to buy all those games, but say a thief breaks into a store (I know, ignore the theft vs copyright thing for a second) and steals 20 big screen TV's. Can he use the excuse that he could never afford to buy those 20 TV's and get his crime reduced to theft under 500$? Didn't think so.

People seem to forget, regardless of whether they could have afforded every one of the games they copied illegally, they got the benefit of having those games as if they had bought them. Are the penalties out of wack? Yes.
Does this excuse the behaviour? No.

Re:DMCA

[iamacat]

Dude, what's the big deal if he copied those big screen TVs without altering the originals in any way? If he truly couldn't afford them, the store doesn't lose anything and potentially gains mindshare - the guy will likely buy the sequels later when he has more money.

Re:DMCA

[Trejkaz]

Naturally everyone RTFA already, because it was on Digg over a day ago and exactly the same arguments came up there about it being a misleading title, and so forth.

Re:DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

"They illegally distributed 77 copies of games. You dont need the DMCA to bust people for that, copyright law already covers that infraction, right? So why invoke the unholy spectre of the DMCA?"

Ahh, I can answer that. It was a slight edit done by journists because of the market DCMA has preduced about how "bad" it is.

But where's the problem?

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

From TFA: During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.

This is where we all cheer, because the DMCA is being used appropriately.
I suspect this story only got a green light because it has that particular acronym, but seriously guys -- this is what the law is supposed to do, right?
Did this just get posted so we could laugh at these guys for being so blatant?

Re:But where's the problem?

[KingSkippus]

You're right on the money, so to speak. Although the DMCA the legal stick that is going to be used to beat them senseless, it's not the modding that got these guys in trouble. If they hadn't been selling the games pre-installed on the hard drive with the modded Xbox, no one would have probably ever pursued this case.

Personally, I have no moral problem with people modding their Xboxes, but I do have moral issues with what these guys did. They deserve to be prosecuted and to go to jail, and more to the point, they deserve to be criticized by communities like the /. crowd for taking something clever and exciting (modding Xboxes) and deliberately turning it into something evil (mass copyright infringement for profit).

Re:But where's the problem?

[swilde23]

and 77 pirated games

It would have been nice to see that information in the headline. Seems a little important to the story. I suppose we could debate the legality of 'modding' chips? Or would that be off-topic?

/shurg

Re:But where's the problem?

[Austerity Empowers]

Judging by how the summary was presented, it was submitted to troll us up into a frenzy about the evil DMCA. If, for example, it mentioned the part where the drives had 77 pirated video games, you could argue I was wrong.

It would have been newsworthy if ALL they were doing was installing a modchip and a large (empty) hard drive, and NOT pirating anything. If they were then charged under the DMCA, we could get excited about something finally being overturned for being blatantly evil.

I can't get worked up over people who were actually pirating and, worse, profiting, from piracy. Let em rot.

Re:But where's the problem?

[thesnarky1]

77 games? Hmm... I'm guessing (having not read TFA) they've got a 200 GB disc in there. My 160 holds about 50, and they range from 2GB to 4GB a piece. A 200 GB drive costs roughly $75-$100 on sale, and the chip costs between $40-$50. A Base XBox (new, not used) would cost $180, so I think what the agents paid was actually a good deal *grin*. Note, all the above prices are based on prices from a while ago, and could be cheaper now. please don't ream me for missing a Best buy sale somewhere.

But yes, these guys are fools for selling it with the games. I also think this is appropriate behavior for the DMCA. They weren't charged due to modding the box, it was the content they sold on it that drew attention. I have modded quite a few boxes, mine, my friends, and other people that my friends know. Before I mod it, I have the other person buy the chip, drive, and I warn them "Microsoft doesn't like this, don't copy games you don't own." I would never sell someone XBox games, that's just stupid, and begging to be caught.

It would be nice if the DMCA was only used in these cases, not ones where some grandmother is accused of something she can't even pronounce, let alone do.

Re:But where's the problem?

[rworne]

The article sure makes it look like installing the mod chip is the problem, doesn't it? I have to get to the 5th paragraph 3/4 of the way through the article to find out there's 77 pirated games sold to an undercover agent as part of the purchase. Up until that point it all looked like a "DMCA screwing the modders" article. If the facts were buried any deeper I'd expect a sign stating "Beware of the leopard" nearby.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Loconut1389]

Hopefully though, this won't be used as some sort of precident against the modding aspect.
I fully support modding too, when it's not used to play/gather/rip/whatever any kind of pirated materials.

If I didn't have a warranty, I'd mod my tivo to put in a bigger disk, since 140 hours was the biggest TiVo sells and at best quality thats less than half that on a good day.

Once my warranty/PRP expires on my xbox, I'll probably mod it too and play with some homebrew apps and get back to my bzflag console edition endeavor, but I've got another year yet to wait.

Anyway, like I said, I really hope that somehow this doesnt become a citation in other cases against modding (by itself, without the piracy aspect)

Re:But where's the problem?

[rolfwind]

I disagree - why isn't this bought up as copyright infringement instead? It's clearly that. Why bring the DMCA into this?

Other than to set precedent, of course. Where the corporations will start nailing more gray area cases, later on.

Re:But where's the problem?

[croddy]

This is where we all cheer, because the DMCA is being used appropriately.

No.

Selling 77 unauthorized copies of software was illegal before the DMCA.

The only time we cheer for the DMCA is when we actually come to believe that it should be illegal to break encryption that was specifically designed to deprive honest customers of their fair use rights.

Re:But where's the problem?

[bhsx]

I wouldn't cheer that they're using the DMCA properly. I could cheer that they're coming down on illegal commercial pirating, which was already covered under old laws. No need for the DMCA at all in this. It's just another charge. Let's not herald it as a damned victory for the DMCA.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Red Alastor]

This is where we all cheer, because the DMCA is being used appropriately.
I suspect this story only got a green light because it has that particular acronym, but seriously guys -- this is what the law is supposed to do, right?

Nope. The DMCA is never used appropriately. I agree that they were wrong and what they did was clearly illegal but we have other laws than the DMCA to take care of that. The DMCA have no legitimate uses.

Re:But where's the problem?

[chuck]

Except according to TFA, the DMCA was not involved at all. This is a copyright case.

Re:But where's the problem?

[sgt scrub]

Hell, I just thought it was a really good deal.

Re:But where's the problem?

[ncc74656]

Judging by how the summary was presented, it was submitted to troll us up into a frenzy about the evil DMCA. If, for example, it mentioned the part where the drives had 77 pirated video games, you could argue I was wrong.

Zonk's getting to be as bad as michael and JonKatz ever were...maybe even worse. More and more of the articles he posts resemble propaganda pieces more than hard news.

Op-ed pieces aren't bad, as long as they're presented as such. Hell, the op-ed page is usually the part of the newspaper I read first. Opinion pieces passed off as news, OTOH, shouldn't be tolerated from any source.

Re:But where's the problem?

[fredfl]

It was all fine and dandy I was thinking too, but selling 77 games to an agent? Come on now, wasnt he wearing a black suit and earpiece like Agent Smith? They should have been more careful.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Pxtl]

Another point is that 200 gigs ain't cheap. I'll bet the lion's share of the $265 they spent went to the chip and drive, leaving the modders with a less-than-exorbitant fee for their work. And there is _no_ appropriate use for the DMCA because the DMCA is an unjust law. The law that should be applied here is copyright infringement - not hacking with the consent of the owner (which is what the DMCA prohibits).

Re:But where's the problem?

[Monkelectric]

The DMCA is still *unnecessary* and therefore A Bad Thing(tm). Theres no reason they can't charge these guys with piracy. The actual modding *SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL*. When the government restricts what people can solder to what, we have a serious problem.

Re:But where's the problem?

[DM9290]

They deserve to be prosecuted and to go to jail,

why so merciful? Wouldn't death be a more effective deterrant against such crime?

In fact.. why not also confiscate all their worldly possessions and condemn them and 10 generations of their ancestors to eternal slavery, so this kind of atrocity never happens again.

Re:But where's the problem?

[vertinox]

Personally, I have no moral problem with people modding their Xboxes, but I do have moral issues with what these guys did.

Legally wrong yes... Legal standards are set for persons to do business in an agreed framework in which interstate commerce commences with the rule of copyright in order to promote arts and sciences. And they have broke the law.

But why is this morally wrong? They did not inflict suffering on any individual person. Maybe a corporation indirectly by removing theoretical profit, but under all major religions, corporations don't have souls and cannot be sinned against. You aren't going to hell for creating a work owned by a non-sentient being and profiting from it unless you inflict malice against an individual.

Unless you pirate in extraordinary means in order to starve someone to death...

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.

We must accept that laws can be broken without being immoral.

Otherwise someone might pass a law that goes against our morals but we simply comply because we think it is moral.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Esion Modnar]

and 77 pirated games

...the DMCA is being used appropriately

Huh? Who needs the DMCA to go after these guys? This was illegal in 1985. Saying they were arrested for modding Xboxes and pirating software, is like saying some guy was arrested for owning a Jimi Hendrix CD (and a pound of marijuana).

And I've just gotten the strangest feeling of deja vu, like I've seen this story somewhere else before...

Re:But where's the problem?

[MoneyT]

I disagree - why isn't this bought up as copyright infringement instead? It's clearly that. Why bring the DMCA into this?

Did you just ask why they brought theDigital Millenium Copyright Act into a copyright infringement case?

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh... slashdot seems to be more and more like the NY times every day ... "All the news that's fit to print..." and then some...

Re:But where's the problem?

[Urusai]

The DMCA would also apply if you put a sticky on your office doorknob saying "don't open" and some shlub opens it (thus tampering with the sticky). Nice to know you can manufacture a felon so simply.

Re:But where's the problem?

[hurfy]

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?

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They deserve to be prosecuted and to go to jail, and more to the point, they deserve to be criticized by communities like the /.

So does Congress. BFD.

Re:But where's the problem?

[HTH NE1]

Hopefully though, this won't be used as some sort of precident against the modding aspect.

Only if convicted by a jury. But they might not accept a plea to just the 77 charges of piracy.

Then again, do we have all the facts? Did the agents provide reasonable proof of ownership of the 77 titles put on the drive, such as providing original discs to the vendor to have them installed on their behalf, rather than in their behalf as implied in the story?

Re:But where's the problem?

[TWX]

"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.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Babbster]

"200 gigs ain't cheap"? A quick look at Newegg finds a 200GB ATA drive for 86 bucks and a mod chip can be had for $20-75 depending on how fancy you want to get. $265 would allow for a very comfortable profit margin depending on how long someone actually takes installing the hardware.

Re:But where's the problem?

[tom2275]

This is where the "Christians" incorrectly assume they have "higher" moral standards than the rest of us. "Morally wrong" has nothing to do with the fact that no "individual person" was harmed. Is that what you teach your children? "Its OK honey, you can steal that candy bar from the MEGA Grocery Store because that doesn't hurt a person, just don't steal it from Joe's Corner Mart." Is that your reasoning?

Morally Wrong is just wrong. If it ain't yours, and you didn't pay for it, its wrong to take it. Do you really need a 2000 year old book to tell you that?

Re:But where's the problem?

[kesuki]

no, you have to lock the door, and then have key set right beside it with a note saying 'not for use in door' thus they've 'broken' your encryption by using the key in the lock.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, We finaly found someone with a brain. Btw I wouldn't apply this globally to christians. As There are far more religions that do the same. Its not a religion that assumes an idea, its a person that assumes a religion.

Re:But where's the problem?

[KingSkippus]

I almost posted a thousand-word response to his post, but you just said it better than I ever could have.

Re:But where's the problem?

[aywwts4]

Yeah, they were just selling an xbox package of over 3000 dollars worth of games for 500 dollars, orrrr they were just regularly selling these packages to all of the many people who aleady invested 3000+ dollars worth of games, proved it to the company and dont like Putting the disk in the drive.

And they wont be found guilty of 77 charges of piracy, they pirated 77 games, multiple times. These people were selling pirated software, its simple, plain as day, and obvious. Let it go. fight the 'anti-hardware modification' fight, not the 'hard drive loaded with pirated games' fight.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Stonehand]

DMCA applies due to the modding chip -- whose presence would probably be much harder to ditch in a hurry than the infringed games.

Might be useful if they want to prosecute for dealings with other customers, any of whom might have wiped their Xboxes clean by now.

Furthermore, it would allow them to go after other vendors openly selling modded Xboxes and games, or to dissuade potential customers, without needing to re-emphasize the finer points of copyright law.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just ask why they brought theDigital Millenium Copyright Act into a copyright infringement case?

Do you think that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act prohibits copyright infringement?

Bzzt. It prohibits activities potentially useful for infringement

Re:But where's the problem?

[spagthorpe]

While I do think they should be prosecuted, I don't know that I believe in jail time for an offense like this. This isn't theft, it's copyright infridgement. I think the standard legal remedies like fining them out of existance are more than fair. Make the punishment fit the crime.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Cobralisk]

You misspelled copyright infringement. Pirates have eyepatches and parrots, and generally dislike ninjas. Copyright infringers distribute creative works illegally.

Yo ho ho, Merry X-mas.

Re:But where's the problem?

[ThreeE]

So does Congress.

Why?

Re:But where's the problem?

[tjp368]

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.

Re:But where's the problem?

[darkmeridian]

"Subtlety-is-the-word-of-the-day dept."

I think that we are supposed to laugh at these idiots.

Re:But where's the problem?

[speederaser]

"...corporations don't have souls and cannot be sinned against".

A corporation is collectively owned by a group of people. Ultimately, the myriad lines of ownership through mutual funds and holding corporations and retirement funds and all the other instruments of ownership all end up in the hands of individual people.

The owners may fill a dozen stadiums and they each may only hold a small portion of the total, but that doesn't matter. Just because your sin is thinly distributed doesn't make it any less a sin.

Re:But where's the problem?

[cbreaker]

I work at a jail, and I don't think anyone that commits such a non violent crime should be sent there. Fined, or community service? That's more resonable.

Really, I mean, is the world a better place with a couple of xbox modders that violated copyright behind bars? I'd rather have them out there working and paying taxes rather then soak them up in jail.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than to set precedent, of course. Where the corporations will start nailing more gray area cases, later on.

Actually, it may be important that they lose this case, specifically because the DMCA is being invoked, but they will probably be convicted under the traditional section of copyright law which means it is a very weak precedent dealing mostly with copyright infringement with just a "side" of circumvention. If you site the case against someone only doing modding, it won't apply because there is no copyright infringement. If the *AA win a lot of DMCA cases based on infringement alone, it leaves more wiggle room than the *major losses* they suffered when attacking Dmitri and DVD Jon.

Re:But where's the problem?

[dakryx]

Why in the world was ICE involved in it versus some other federal law enforcement agency?

Re:But where's the problem?

[Thing 1]

Psst, I just friended you. I don't see any other way to tell you. I've admired your sig for several months and have shared it with many. I really like the way you stated the obvious: when it's illegal to put one part next to another part, we're living in a police state.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sucks If microsoft would just ship them that way to begin with. Every time you get a small business going, They should have shot it out with them like the rest of us. Put a star in your life fuck a deputies wife.

Re:But where's the problem?

[IOOOOOI]

As long as the prosecution is about the obvious copyright infringement... as for the modding, well, that is debatable.

But take note of the prosecutor's nod:

"The consoles involved in this case were of the first-generation Xbox, not the recently launched Xbox 360, a representative for the prosecution said. This isn't the first crackdown on modding."

Wouldn't want to there to be any doubt about that... it might upset the client's marketing strategy.

Re:But where's the problem?

[bored]

Not only that, but the scale of the crimes doesn't compare. Take for example the quest CEO charged with insider trading to the tune of a hundred million dollars or so. He gets max 10 years, these guys get 5 years for copyright infrignment? What was the total $ value? Maybe a few thousand?

Re:But where's the problem?

[cstream_chris]

Jeez... aren't we being insightful and interesting today

Re:But where's the problem?

[NixLuver]

"Personally, I have no moral problem with people modding their Xboxes, but I do have moral issues with what these guys did. They deserve to be prosecuted and to go to jail, and more to the point, they deserve to be criticized by communities like the /. crowd for taking something clever and exciting (modding Xboxes) and deliberately turning it into something evil (mass copyright infringement for profit)."

Holy crap! you sound like they were raping children or burning puppies alive! This is a civil action, has been for literally hundreds of years. Copyright owners should recover damages from these guys - historically, treble the actual damages + punitive damages. If they represented them as legal distribution, then it's fraud, and it is a crime.

Regardless, I think we should reserve dramatic monikers like "evil" for people who kill, torture, blow people up, etc. These guys were naughty. Ted Bundy was evil. These guys were shady. Richard Speck was evil. These guys were bad boys. Pol Pot was evil.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Monkelectric]

Much appreciated. The quote is from an episode of "Real time with Bill Maher" which runs on HBO sporadically. Another favorite is "So many christians, so few lions." :)

Re:But where's the problem?

[ralph1]

Put a star in your life fuck a deputies wife.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your point of view and agree completely, but the information you don't have is that the software/games industry is an industry based on artificial supply/demand. If you go in as a paid developer, you deserve to be paid. But the companies sell these games for many many times more than what the games take to develop. The first 5000 games sold pay for the developers time. The next 500,000 are profit for the companies. The DMCA is a very very large stick put in place to make sure that the development companies keep their returns very high. The DMCA was enacted by politicians whose campaigns were funded by those same companies. Is it wrong to jail someone for selling fake Rolexes? Some think so. Some people think that money is more important than life.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Traiklin]

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".

Re:But where's the problem?

[kramthegram]

I dislike the DMCA also, but there are appropriate uses. Here is an analogy; a man buys a stock gun and then hacks/mods/upgrades it to get around laws. He now has an illegal item. Or here is another analogy, a criminal mods a home console to play pirated software... oh wait, that's what happened! The problem with the DMCA is that it has no clause for malice or intent to circumvent other laws. Simply modding to add legal features should not be a crime, what they did should be. The DMCA has serious flaws, which can be abused. Cars can kill people, something that the DMCA has yet to do. Why not stop driving cars? The law should be amended, not repealed.

Re:But where's the problem?

[David Nabbit]

It would have been nice to see that information in the headline.

Ah, but then there would be nothing to flame about. ;)

Re:But where's the problem?

[Keeper]

And said activities WERE used in this infringment.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Keeper]

The act of circumventing copy protection in order to sell 77 unauthorized copies was legal before the DCMA.

This is essentially the difference between commiting a burglary and commiting a burglary with a weapon. Why are there two different statutes governing the same offense? Because one is considered more serious than the other.

Re:But where's the problem?

[mildgift]

The DMCA requires intent. It's the intent to circumvent copy protection technology that defines one violation of the DMCA.

The DMCA gives extra, new rights to software that doesn't exist for anything else. For example, if you bought a suitcase, and broke the lock on it, that's legal, because you own the suitcase. Under the DMCA, it's illegal to even attempt to break the "locks" on software that you purchased.

Re:But where's the problem?

[julesh]

Absolutely true. The moral crime occurs when you copy something that you (or the person you give it to) might otherwise have bought. This deprives the creators of income.

Note that the fact that the people refered to in the article were *selling* the XBoxes with software *at a premium* probably indicates that their customers would likely have been willing to pay for (at least some of) the games had no "pirated" version been available, so this moral crime has in fact been committed in this case.

Re:But where's the problem?

[dcsmith]

I disagree - why isn't this bought up as copyright infringement instead? It's clearly that. Why bring the DMCA into this?

Because the DMCA is a much bigger, scarier stick with which to beat them, and probably carries the potential for greater penalty than 'simple' copyright infringement.

Re:But where's the problem?

[F_Scentura]

They're violating your "right" to pirate for commercial gain!

Re:But where's the problem?

[TWX]

"Absolutely true. The moral crime occurs when you copy something that you (or the person you give it to) might otherwise have bought. This deprives the creators of income."

Another one for you to wrap your brain around... What if the creator wasn't selling the software, or if it was otherwise unavailable through any official means to the recipient? This becomes important with out-of-print books, movies, and music in the non-computer realm, and can be interesting for embedded software and old versions of progams and operating systems. It further applies to things like old console games that inventive people have managed to copy from ROM chips into PC-usable data, so that the games can be used with video-game system emulators. Nintendo, Sega, Namco, Konami, etc aren't producing more copies of the games for the old systems, let alone continuing to port the existing software for the new ones. In that regard these companies have made contributions to culture and then restricted the availablity of that, straining culture or forcing it to abandon what it holds dear on account of corporate will, not will of the society.

That last one is a little more outlandish, but the same basic principle applies, even if a little obtuse.

Re:But where's the problem?

[HTH NE1]

And they wont be found guilty of 77 charges of piracy, they pirated 77 games, multiple times.

But they had to conduct a sting operation to get evidence of a crime, and that is a single XBOX sale that had 77 copies on the hard drive. If they had evidence of other sales, why have a sting?

Now maybe after getting access to all their sales records they might be able to track down other sales and prove more instances, but there's not that much motivation. It may increase the damages in a civil suit, but for the criminal case the one sale would be sufficient for a conviction, and if they can beat the one (if it is installing games provided by the agents relegating the originals as backups or the same for cheap used games included in the bundle), they'll get a pass on all the other alleged sales too.

Consider the possibility that these ($3000 / 77 ~=) $38.95 games were themselves bought as used games for $3.00 each, and that selling them preinstalled at ($500 / 77 ~=) $6.50 each is ( $6.50 / $3 - 1 ~=) 117% profit per title for the used game vendor, and you get the playable copy on the drive and your backups as the original disks.

Or do we suddenly believe that we have no fair-use right to have functional backup copies of our games? that the DMCA rightfully strips us of the right to make backups?

Depending on facts that may have been excluded from the story, this case may yet be defensible.

Re:But where's the problem?

[giorgiofr]

Well yeah OK but this is /. and copyright infringement is one of the most talked about topics, people arealmost expected to voice their opinions loudly and with some enthusiasm.
Besides, I don't think you need to be Pol Pot to be evil. An old lady I know was recently run over by a bike (!), fell down and suffered injuries to internal organs and broke her leg, while the biker ran away: I would say that biker is evil. Maybe these dealers here were not so bad but still it's quite disgusting to profit by selling someone else's work without any kind of compensation whatsoever.

Re:But where's the problem?

[julesh]

Then it isn't very clear. As with all moral questions, there are grey areas. In this one, the answer depends on something that you have no way of knowing: is there a way for the creator to profit from his work in the future that your actions will effect.

In the case of old games, I'd say the chance of this happening is almost zero. I don't think there's any moral problem, for example, in my collection of old Sinclair Spectrum games I have collected for use with a PC emulator. While I do own original copies of some of these, there are many in there that I never did have a copy of.

Out-of-print books is a more interesting question. Note that this may only be a temporary situation, as under standard industry contract terms, after a book has been out of print for some time period (usually about a year, I think) the publisher's exclusive right to print copies is revoked. I know of at least one author who is currently considering rereleasing one of her out-of-print novels as an e-book.

Music rarely becomes completely unavailable, as far as I can tell. As I understand it, most music publishers will sell rights to include almost any track on compilations under standard (non-discriminatory) terms. E.g., you could purchase a Limited Availability License from the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society, which would effectively authorise you to make up to 500 reproductions of up to 30 minutes of music for £17.63.

Re:But where's the problem?

[FireBreathingDog]

So many christians, so few lions.

Such tolerance from someone who probably claims to despise intolerance...

Re:But where's the problem?

[Monkelectric]

Such tolerance from someone who probably claims to despise intolerance...

Hah. I'm part of the "angry white male" demographic. Christians have proved they are not capable of tolerance, so I simply deal with them on their level. They are dead weight and old lies trying to drag society back into the dark ages.

Re:But where's the problem?

[Thing 1]

Hey thanks! Although I didn't mention it, I did wonder where it originated. I really liked Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" -- I remember one episode in particular from 10 years ago or so, where I was very impressed with David Lowery's communication skills and intelligence (he was the vocalist/front-man for Camper Van Beethoven, then later Cracker--and just now as I was looking up the spelling for his last name, I found news that Camper is back on tour!).

Rip-off your neighbour

[SilentOne]

From TFA:

During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.

Like I said on digg this morning when this was posted there, no wonder they were charged, and quite rightly too.

This is not a "Your rights online" story, it's a story about blatent copyright violation.

Re:Rip-off your neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

If the problem is copyright violation/pirating, then why not charge them with that? Last time I checked, that was illegal even before the DMCA.

Re:Rip-off your neighbour

[PhotoBoy]

The trouble with cases like this is they keep highlighting the "modded consoles" part, and only adding the part about the pirated games as if it's an afterthought. I totally agree that pirates flogging Xboxes with 77 pirated games is criminal, but if I want to mod my Xbox I should be allowed to. Criminalizing people's right to modify things they own is something that is really pissing me off, it seems like a deliberate attempt to link modifying with crime even though I don't believe a link should exist.

I modded my Xbox myself, I put a bigger hard drive in it and it's one of the best console experiences I've had. I do not pirate games, but I did want to play imports which is one of the reasons I modded my console. The other main reason for the mod was so I could have all the games installed on the hard drive. I love being able to just browse a big list of my games and pick whatever takes my fancy. And until Tecmo started suing their fans there was an excellent modding community for their games. I can FTP files to the Xbox, there's a button combination to reset to the main list of games and I can turn the console off in software. On top of that there's excellent media player software for playing Divx/Xvid and DVDs in 720p or 1080i and that's before we even get into the Linux stuff. These are all excellent features and one day I hope they become standard in all consoles. The 360 seems to have some of this covered already (like switching the console off from the controller) but the installing games part is something which may only ever be possible via a modchip...

AAARRGG Pirates!

[monster8]

AAARRGGH them swanky pirates!

Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you oppose the DMCA (as I do), this is the wrong type of case to rally around.

Read the article:

"During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint." (emphasis added)

Now, if they were charged for selling the modding and hard drives, it's a clear-cut abuse of the DMCA by industry and law enforcement. But they were allegedly selling 77 pirated games. That's a completely different issue and doesn't necessarily deserve any support.

Disclaimer: The article is pretty scant on details, so if it turns out the 77 "pirated" games were actually purchased at full price and installed on the hard drive, then I'll support the ACME Game Store owners.

Re:Misleading summary

[Jace of Fuse!]

Disclaimer: The article is pretty scant on details, so if it turns out the 77 "pirated" games were actually purchased at full price and installed on the hard drive, then I'll support the ACME Game Store owners.

By saying 77 "pirated" games, they are implying that the games were not bought, paid for, and original copies were included with the package.

If it turns out that 77 original copies of the 77 included games came as part of the package (used, new, or homebrew) then they are not technically "pirated". It would be nice to know for sure, since we can't exactly trust the media to report this sort of thing accurately*.

*No. We really can't. Most technology news reporters don't know their asshole from a chocolate doughnut.

Re:Misleading summary

[sixpaw]

If it turns out that they sold 77 original copies of these games (with the service of convenient HD bundling) for roughly $2-$3 per game ($265, minus the cost of a hard drive and the mod chip itself), then they're just wantonly stupid, not to mention in the red to the tune of $2000 or so on that sale. I'm going to stick with the 'pirated' explanation on this one.

Re:Misleading summary

[Jace of Fuse!]

I'm going to stick with the 'pirated' explanation on this one.

My common sense feeling is that the games were in fact pirated.

However, I have seen game stores BUY games from idiotic customers for no more than a few dollars per. If the store were to get rid of those games in that fashion, it costs them very little.

Also, if the console included 77 non-commercial games enabled to run on a modded Xbox, then they couldn't by definition BE pirated at all.

Let's imagine the following scenerio. A store has a bunch of Halo and other popular used title disc laying about. They install those, include the disc, and then fill the drive up with some 50 or 60 free bits of software designed to run on whatever flavor of free OS the modded XBox is set up with.

Has any law been broken other than the DMCA? Should this act be illegal?

I'm by no means saying this is actually what happened, but IF THIS EVER DOES HAPPEN, those performing the acts may still be held accountable under the DMCA. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

P.S. Since I'm not keeping current on the state of Linux or Homebrew on the XBox, so what I'm saying not even really be feasible or at least really playable if done.

Re:Misleading summary

[BadassJesus]

"77 pirated games" is self-explaining enough,
if someone says "pirated" they do not mean
you are getting 77 original DVDs with the XBox,
but one and only one dirty XBox.

Re:Misleading summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's quite probable that 77 copies of Duke Nukem, Commander Keen, and every other EGA franchise from Apogee and iD Games in the 80s and early 90s was ported to XBox and installed. They were fully licensed and paid for, and that's why they were Federal Agents and were raided. That's a very likely hypothesis that could happen. That's what the reporter meant to say when they said "pirated", they just got their words mixed up.

Re:Misleading summary

[HTH NE1]

"77 pirated games" is self-explaining enough

Not really. "Pirated" is used synonymously with "copied". If you're putting them on the hard drive, you're copying them. Any copying is illegal, so they're pirated.

But you have no history of ownership for those 77 titles. Maybe the agents provided proof of ownership to entice the act of copying. Maybe the seller buys used games and sells them back cheap to make the modded box more interesting and get them as return customers for other titles at market prices (Columbia Record Company, 100 CDs for 1 cent anyone?). We don't know whether they got the 77 originals or that once copied the originals were destroyed.

All the law cares about is that a copy was made without permission of the copyright holder, ergo piracy. But there are ways to copy honorably that should not be considered criminal.

Too Bad

[TripMaster Monkey]

(Lyrics from Too Bad, by Doug and the Slugs):

Too bad that you had to get caught
That's not like you to lose face
So sad that you're not as smart
As you thought you were in the first place

As if selling an illegal mod chip wasn't bad enough, these geniuses also helpfully loaded up the XBox with 77 pirated games.

These guys are screwed, and they have noone but themselves to blame.

Re:Too Bad

[wilson_c]

As if selling an illegal mod chip wasn't bad enough, these geniuses also helpfully loaded up the XBox with 77 pirated games.

The "illegality" of mod chips is pretty debatable, even with the DMCA. Adding drive space and hacking your XBox to run Linux are arguably fair end-user modifications. It's really just about selling stolen software.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

the mod chip isn't illegal, the 77 games on the other hand is what got them busted

Re:Too Bad

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

The three men are being accused of "conspiring to traffic in a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system and conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement," in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.

From the language, the first part of the charge sounds like they're talking about the XBox mod (...a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system...), while the second part is in regards to the pirated games (...conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement...).

So it seems to be about both.

Re:Too Bad

[kerrle]

It may have more to do with the use; a mod chip becomes a copyright protection circumvention device when that's what you use it for.

If you're using it to run linux, it doesn't really fit that definition, and I haven't seen Microsoft go after a modder here in the US where there weren't pirated games included in the sale.

Re:Too Bad

[Loconut1389]

Imho, modchips are like lock picking sets. In the right hands, they can be used fruitfully to legal ends (locksmith/homebrew developer)- but in the wrong hands they can be used to steal property (opening doors/decryption).

Lock pick sets are legal in most places- with exceptions and regulations in quite a lot of places though.

Seems to me if you can demonstrate some level of programming ability (show your transcript?) and affirm under threat of perjury that you intend to program xbox software, the modchips should be allowed.

Re:Too Bad

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

Re:Too Bad

[Not_Wiggins]

...it has the potential to become a very bad precedent, and ruin mod-chipping for everyone.

Well, you're absolutely correct on this one. It can go one of two ways. But if it gets the "legs" we all fear, one more right goes down the toilet and possibly gives steam to the anti-analog recording device trouble that's been brewing lately.

Re:Too Bad

[kerrle]

We'll see; the courts have generally been fairly resistant to outlawing a technology just because it might be used for piracy.

Of course, congress could change this via legislation, but I don't see anything too scary about this specific case - no more so than other cases where both piracy and mod chips have been involved.

Re:Too Bad

[lithite]

There is nothing illegal about the modchip. There is no "illegal modchip." What is put on the modchip, e.g. a piece of software (often a Hacked M.S. BIOS which allows the playback of unsigned code) can be potentially illegal.

The games put on the console are not a helpful afterthought. It is the reason they were arrested. This is not the first arrest of this type. Here in Springfield, VA, quite a while ago, Pandora's Cube was shut down for the same reason. I think they were the first siege for these reasons.

Frankly, we are not looking at a DMCA thing here, we are looking at a case similar to copying a cd and selling it on your streetcorner, which is, and should be, illegal. Putting a big Harddrive and a modchip capable of replacing the BIOS is not, should not be, and is on the same level as putting an extra switch on your toaster which gives it the strength of TEN TOASTERS.

Re:Too Bad

[gvibes]

There definitely could be illegal modchips.

From the DMCA:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

It would be a factually interesting case, hinging on how "primarily" the mod chips are used for copyright infringement, and how significant the non-infringing purpose of the chips is, but ultimately, I think it highly likely that a manufacturer or distributor of mod chips (in the US, of course) would go to jail, or whatever the penalty is.

Re:Too Bad

[Stonehand]

The law itself specifies.

I'm feeling too lazy right now to dig up my copy yet again, but -- if memory serves, there are two conditions, either of which suffices.

The first is that the item or service is specifically intended for circumventing a digital access protection measure.

The second is that the item or service is marketed or advertised for circumventing a digital access protection measure.

Thus, "could" is not sufficient, in the general case. That 'could' would have to be strongly indicative that the infringing use is actually by design...

In this case, since the mod chip was presumably included to bypass the access controls and allow the use of infringing material that the accused themselves provided, it should be a slam dunk -- they can't plausibly claim that they were providing the chips only for legal use.

Re:Too Bad

[Trach]

MOd chips are not illegal, nor is softmodding. The point of a mod chip is not to copy games or to get around security, it is to increase the entertainment value of my, personal electronics. I am not stealing, I an not infringing copywrite I am using my 300 dollar investment to it's fullest capacity and no law should prevent me from doing that, It hurts nobody, it only makes me happier. By banning modding it would break my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness. If it helps me achieve happieness without stopping another persons life, liberty, or happieness then It should not be stopped. I realise now that this is slightly off-topic but it had to be said. I appolagise for my terrible spellign and word choice, but I am very tired so just try to read through it.

Re:Too Bad

[lithite]

This is exactly what I was saying. Modchips are not designed for copyright infringement. They are designed so that people can use their non-EULAed hardware however they want.

Nothing to this really

[rworne]

From TFA:
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.

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.

Blackmail

[jollyroger1210]

My friend has a modded original Xbox, s i used it to blackmail him into stuff. Really, try it.

If

[Landak]

If you RTFA, then you'll find that this isn't a case of "Modded xboxes = bad" it's "Modded xbox + large amounts of commercial copyright violation = bad". Which I don't think most people would have a problem with. Slashdot strikes again!

(Although, having said that, I'm here on a day-pass. Anyone else think that the idea is actually pretty great?)

Re:If

[TubeSteak]

Yes and no.

My ad muncher kills whatever ad is being served up (in CSS i assume) as part of the default filter set, so I clicked the link, but didn't see the advert.

It's not like subscribers get special early posting privileges (they don't... right?) The only benefit is that they have the pleasure of /.'ing videos and similar stuff.

If it makes more money than the paid subscriptions, then by all means, continue the day pass. Otherwise, Slashdot's Over Lords are taking away something special from the people who're paying money to support their /. habit.

I'd like to hear what subscribers have to say

/Also I can read fast enough that I rarely need a preview of the article to think up Funny/Insightful/Informative/Underrated comments before getting drowned out by the masses. It's not like all of /. reads TFA before opening their yappers anyways. This thread being a prime example, though I assume the DMCA = Bad comments will get moderated -1 Didn't RTFA.

Re:If

[pxuongl]

well if you read the f'ing comments, then u'll realize that the greater majority of people aren't saying "modded xboxes=bad"

Re:If

[Mhtsos]

If you RTFA, then you'll find that this isn't a case of "Modded xboxes = bad" it's "Modded xbox + large amounts of commercial copyright violation = bad". Which I don't think most people would have a problem with.
This is exactly why it's bad. Because these guys did actually rip game publishers off this is an ideal case for precidence to be established in the DMCA. It would be far easier to cry "DMCA is bad" if modding was their only crime. Because these guys actually are at fault is is easyer to summarily decide "Modded xbox + large amounts of commercial copyright violation = bad" and from that decide that "therefore Modded xbox=bad". I hold no sympathy for them as well, burn them at the steak, but for the right reason! Specifying why they are being convicted is crucial here.

The scary thing is...

[jnadke]

If you read closely, they're not only invoking DMCA for pirated games, but also the modchip itself (conspiring to circumvent...).

This could set a precedent that means the end of:
TiVo mods
Linux on XBOX
Tinkering with Trusted Computing (!)
Pretty much modifying any hardware with basic protections

Re:The scary thing is...

[Rude Turnip]

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.

Re:The scary thing is...

[Loconut1389]

if you pay even $1 for a piece of hardware that you never have to return (eg not a lease, like some electric cars), you own that hardware and it's just a desktop computer essentially. I say, if you mod it when the warranty is still active, you void it- and perhaps any right to utilize whatever service you're connecting to (Xbox live, TiVo) if the agreement says so, but you should be able to tweak the hardware as much as you like.

Trusted computing is sort of a different story, since if it's modded, it sort of breaks the whole trust thing.

but anyway, as I said in another reply here somewhere, while the piracy of the games is wrong, i hope that modding by itself remains legal.

Re:The scary thing is...

[apflwr]

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.

Right, but if they are prosecuted for the mod chip as well as the software piracy, that sents a precedent... And makes it much easier to go after others for simply "modding" in the future.

That's what's scary.

Re:The scary thing is...

[phorm]

Part of the law is intent though, just like you can be charged for conspiracy to commit murder if nobody is killed. So if I open somebody's unlocked car door to turn off his headlights, I might not be nailed (depends on the cop, the judge, and the owner), but if I do so and then drive off with the car... then I'm probably liable for both the theft and the steps leading up to it.

The problem of course is that the legal system often looks past intent nowadays.

Re:The scary thing is...

[Shaklee39]

OOOOOOHHHHHHH!!! No way! This is setting a precedent for reverse engineering! Oh no, get the FSF and the ACLU! Oh wait, their ruling means absolutely nothing for any of these, you are just a fucking moron. Go blog about how you hate Bush you jerkoff.

Re:The scary thing is...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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.

Re:The scary thing is...

[ErroneousBee]

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.

I expect the authorities are prosecuting these low sympathy cases to create an amount of precedent before moving on to more contentious uses of modchips

Re:The scary thing is...

[kevinadi]

Pretty much modifying any hardware with basic protections

I can just see it now. Using the DMCA, US companies will get lazier and lazier since their "encryption" is protected by law so that no one can break it. Do you think people in other countries care about the DMCA? The current trend in the US of companies using law to strengthen their so-called security is pathetic. If MS can't make their xbox bulletproof, then no amount of law would change that fact.

After all, this case would sound extremely stupid over time. iPods uses simple file hiding for their "protection". Does that mean if I set windows to display hidden files, I'm liable to get prosecuted under DMCA for "circumventing" Apple's protection?

Hell, pretty soon typing "ls -la" would be illegal

Re:The scary thing is...

[Fnord666]

This seems like a very clever end run by the prosecutors involved and is a critical case for hardware modding. From what I read in TFA, they have these guys dead to rights on the pirated games. Tacking on the DMCA lets the prosecution set a very desirable precedent in a federal court. The defense is going to have a difficult time separating out the charges, explaining to a jury of their peers or a judge why it doesn't apply, and getting a not guilty verdict on the DMCA related charges. It will be interesting to see if the prosecution is willing to settle the case or if they push for a trial. This will let us see what their real agenda is.

Re:The scary thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharpie pens that can circumvent the copy protection on certain CD's...

Silly Law

[TastyWheat]

So if I buy a car I can't um "mod" it to be faster?
Who the hell would cheer for any of this?

The DMCA is silly. Don't our Federal Agents have better ppl to track down? Like maybe the terrorists?

Re:Silly Law

[thundergeek]

The DMCA is silly. Don't our Federal Agents have better ppl to track down? Like maybe the terrorists?

Nope!

Re:Silly Law

[Anonymous Coward]

yes you can mod your car.
yes you can mod your xbox.
(as far as i know)

what you can't do is stupidly include 77 pirated video games with every xbox you sell...

Re:Silly Law

[Anne Thwacks]

Hold on thar, good buddy...

Gamers and people who listen to music are terrorists in the eyes of the ??AA.

Re:Silly Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Eff, you caught me again!

Re:Silly Law

[value_added]

The DMCA is silly. Don't our Federal Agents have better ppl to track down? Like maybe the terrorists?

Nope!

You wish.

The Immigration folks, as well as those in Customs, are now part of the Department of Homeland Security. So, you see this is about fighting the terrorists.

Re:Silly Law

[AeroIllini]

Gamers and people who listen to music are terrorists in the eyes of the ??AA.

You don't mean '??AA'. What you really mean is '[(RI)|(MP)|(GN)]AA'. The NCAA, AIAA, AAAA and NIAA kindly ask that you not lump them in with such filth.

"77 pirated games installed."

[dmcooper]

I was all with them until this nonsense. Of course... why would they cost themselves the profit of at least selling the games if they ran a game store? Even at $10 apiece, that's well over the cost of what they were charging to give them for.

Re:"77 pirated games installed."

[softspokenrevolution]

Well, the great thing is that they can keep copying the one copy of the game and sell it as many times as they want. So sure, they'll sell it to you for $3, because they still have the original software and plan on selling 100 more.

77 Games?

[sbyrnes00]

That's about 76 more than the number of worthwhile games available for the Xbox. They got ripped off. =)

Re:77 Games?

[Eightyford]

That's about 76 more than the number of worthwhile games available for the Xbox. They got ripped off. =)

Just out of curiousity, what good games does the PS2 or Gamecube have that the XBox doesn't?

Re:77 Games?

[Ride Jib]

Actually, 75. Tiger Woods AND Medal Of Honor are two worthy titles. Both of my roommates, who don't normally play video games are addicted to those two.

Re:77 Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

RPGs and platformers.

Re:77 Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Katamari Damacy.

Re:77 Games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a glance at my game collection, not an exhaustive list by any means; I don't even have a PS2.

resident evil 4, wario ware, pikmin, mario sunshine, killer 7.

Re:77 Games?

[vux984]

Heh. It probably wasn't a good idea to pick on the gamecube there. Lots of good exclusives is probably the gamecube's biggest selling point. Even if you have a ps2 or xbox, picking up a cube just for its exclusives isn't a bad idea.

Nintendo 1st party exclusives (read: stuff published by Nintendo for Nintendo) tend to be above average quality games. For starters there is the ubiquitous Mario franchise -- and most of the various Mario games are well made and fun to play. From Mario Party 7 to Mario Golf to Wario World...

They also have a variety of excellent non-Mario exclusives including titles like:

Eternal Darkness
Pikman / Pikman 2
Zelda Windwaker
Metroid Prime / Prime 2
F-Zero GX
Zelda Twilight Princess (coming soon... completely different art direction from Windwaker) ...
Did they release Ikaruga for PS2/Xbox? (Friggen amazing quasi-retro scrolling shooter.)

To sum up: If *all* you like is first person shooters or think the pinnacle of gaming is racing your pimp-mobile into hookers and cops then the 'cube exclusives probably won't do much for you, but for gamers who like more variety of gameplay the 'cube exclusives are quite a treat.

Re:77 Games?

[mkw87]

FYI, they were probably not XBox games, though they could have been. A lot of xbox's are modded with NES and SNES (n64 probably too, havent done this though) emulators and ROMs of NES and/or SNES games.

Thats right, you can turn a modern XBox into a NES AND SNES AT THE SAME TIME!! You dont even have to tear it apart if its one of the older ones, just buy the one James Bond game, install software that came with it, hook up to hub/router, and use an FTP client to transfer emulator and roms to the XBox harddrive.

x. Profit!!

Re:77 Games?

[spxero]

As others stated, GC has the whole nintendo game universe...

One thing the PS2 has over X-Box is the release of games like GTA 3/Vice City/San Andreas months (if not a year) before the x-box release.

But for a list of games...

-Kingdom Hearts
-Gran Turismo (the series)
-Jak & Daxter, Jak 2, Jak 3, Jak X racing
-TimeSplitters (the original)
-Tiger Woods (2001,2002)
-Hot Shots Golf (the series)
-Oni
-Resident Evil (series)

While this isn't a complete list, these are games that I was able to play (or play before) on PS2. But you've got Halo, so that's all that matters, right?

Re:77 Games?

[tyagiUK]

Good, informative post. However, you mean "Pikmin" and not "Pikman". See http://www.gamerwiki.com/index.php/Pikmin_(GameCub e)

Re:77 Games?

[Eightyford]

But you've got Halo, so that's all that matters, right?

Actually the Dreamcast was the last system I picked up. Shenmue was so over-rated...

Re:77 Games?

[Tim Browse]

They also have a variety of excellent non-Mario exclusives including titles like:

Eternal Darkness
Pikman / Pikman 2
Zelda Windwaker
Metroid Prime / Prime 2
F-Zero GX
Zelda Twilight Princess

Yeah, but they're all just kids' games.

Re:77 Games?

[vux984]

Yeah, but they're all just kids' games.

/sigh

Rated E for Everyone means just that: EVERYONE. To reject a game based on the fact that its rated E is just juvenile. (It's ironic actually.)

That said, your comment wasn't even accurate the Metroids are rated Teen, and Eternal Darkness is rated Mature.

Re:77 Games?

[Destoo]

Ikaruga was also released on the Dreamcast.

Pikmin.. not Pikman

Smash Brother Melee is also THE title to get other gamers to the gamecube.

We probably won't hear from TTP until E3, I fear.

Re:77 Games?

[Tim Browse]

/sigh

It was me who was being ironic, actually. I was just reciting the standard anti-Nintendo moan for a laugh - I own an N64 and GC and amongst others, I've played Eternal Darkness (yay!), Metroid Prime (meh), and various Mario games (yay! mostly).

So you lose!

Unless you're playing Mario Kart, which always makes you some kind of winner. I pity the people who can't see this :)

I know we're all cheering the DMCA here...

[Sheetrock]

But, objectively speaking, wouldn't they still be facing a ton of legal problems even if it never existed?

It still seems right to criticize the DMCA to me. It isn't necessary to get pirates but it does criminalize a whole range of activities that really shouldn't be illegal.

Re:I know we're all cheering the DMCA here...

[wiggles]

I totally agree. The DMCA here is a bit like fishing with dynamite. Sure, you get the fish, but what other damage are you causing in the process? I think these guys were properly busted for this, but I think they still could have been caught and prosecuted if the DMCA were more narrowly worded.

Re:I know we're all cheering the DMCA here...

[LilGuy]

Spelling tip: grammer is spelled grammar.

Re:I know we're all cheering the DMCA here...

[Thing 1]

Kelsey tip: you're not fucking talking about him! Fix your sig already.

In Soviet Russia

[Loconut1389]

In Soviet Russia, XBox'es mod you (down)...

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

despite posting with no karma bonus and no subscriber bonus, I get modded down as overrated at 1- and yet I thought it was a somewhat funny take on an old joke, what with the multiple meanings and all.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

overrated? -doubtful-
but definately -not- offtopic considering it's a joke about xbox mods!

Is 5 years appropriate?

[komodotoes]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for these guys because obviously they were doing more than modding consoles. But is a 5 year prison sentence appropriate for this? I'm not sure how prison sentences work in California, but in Canada a 5 year sentence doesn't neccesarily mean you spend 5 years behind bars. I just think that a civil remedy would probably be just as effective (i.e. sue for damages). I'm obviously not a lawyer - I just think half a decade of unwilling participation might be overboard for small scale piracy.



NeverEndingBillboard.com

Re:Is 5 years appropriate?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also the restrictions on travel, having to get pardons, and the other things having a criminal record that generally fuck you over into being poor.

Re:Is 5 years appropriate?

[zoloto]

Prison is almost never the answer in these situations. How about instead of 5 years if prison, they're charged financially what it would cost per prisoner for 5 years plus 5 years probation?

No prison, and the state could use the money. It sure beats filling up the prisons with useless bullshit.

Re:Is 5 years appropriate?

[geekoid]

No, it is not appropriet, but not unusual.

They should be sued(civil action) and be given community service.
This has several advantages.
1) They keep making money, and paying taxes
2) The copyright they infringed can get some money back(maybe)
3) Cheaper for tax payers
4) Most people who do things that eran them 'community service' are only qualified to pick up trash. These guys could abe used to teach people there skills for free.
Example:
If they are running there own small business, they could give class's at the employment dept. on the pitfalls of running a business. If they have electronic skills, they could teach electronics at a local community center. etc . . .

They can stay out of prison, and the community has a chance to get something that could enable them to advance to another income bracket or start there own business.

Naturally, they would be monitored.

Re:Is 5 years appropriate?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Federal system, 5 years is 5 years. State systems have "time off for good behavior," and parole, and probation. Federal systems lack all three. If you are convicted of a federal crime (copyright infringement, according to the DMCA, is a federal criminal process as well as a federal civil process,) and you are sentenced to 5 years, you spend 5 years in jail. There are ways of reducing the sentence, but once you are sentenced the only way to reduce the sentence is for the judge to make an order reducing the sentence.

Re:Is 5 years appropriate?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Yes, God forbid that white-collar criminals receive any jail time. /sarcasm

I say, put them into prison and let them take their chances at getting anally abused by a 400 pound thug. Next time they'll think twice about stealing, cheating, lying, or whatever of these "sins" you believe their crime falls into (I know many here don't believe copyright infringement constitutes stealing, but I've yet to see many say that it doesn't constitute cheating). Criminal, not civil, penalties are appropriate as these guys are guilting of crimes rather than just civil regulations.

NIce

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone know where I can get an xbox with 71 pre installed games?

still probably illegal

[sherlocktk]

Although it is not illegal to install a mod chip in the box, by far all of the software run on these in one shape and form is illegal. Yes I know there is a perfectly legal way to run linux on this machine, but that is not what is used in practice. Even without using "commercial" software, you still need 2 pieces of sofware to make this work

1. You need to get a hacked bios that lets you boot soemthing else besides the DVD drive
2. you need to run some sort of dashboard. (basically a menu manager on which programs to launch.

Since all of these are built with an piece of software that MS owns, and is not licensened to build "homebrew" software its still technically not legal to get this software. That is why this software is not availiable for blatent download, you have to do a little bit of digging.

Now ethically I have no problem with the abouve steps to lets say get xbox media center working (my favorite reason for my xbox). But I think the store selling the box with games is totally wrong and just blatent copyright infringement/theft, depending on the camp you talk to. People worked hard on the games, and they deserve to get paid, just like you deserve to get paid at your work for what you do.

Re:still probably illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

MS DASHBOARD is booted from the HDD....point 1 is incorrect....

The actual reason you need the hacked bios is to run unsigned code....ie we can make a file called msdashboard.xbe and the bios will try to boot it...but unless its signed by ms itll error out...

Re:still probably illegal

[sherlocktk]

Yes it will boot ms dashboard from the HDD, but that does not let you do anything different that what it does stock. I was merely stating what the average modded xbox setup has at a minimum.

Re:still probably illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

you still need 2 pieces of sofware to make this work

1. You need to get a hacked bios that lets you boot soemthing else besides the DVD drive

You don't need to download a hacked BIOS anymore. Modern softmods will patch the BIOS - eg, nkpatcher - so that is not a copyright violation (although arguably distribution of the patcher itself is a DMCA violation).

Re:still probably illegal

[Nurgled]

While you are right that there is no legal way to get the XBox SDK to build these homebrew apps, once they are built it's a bit of a stretch to say that it's illegal to use them. The person who built the app is infringing copyright by using the SDK without a licence, but you don't need the SDK to actually run the result.

Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only did they pirate the games, but they ripped off the rock band AC~DC for the logo on their website as well.

http://www.acmegamestore.com/

Re:Pirates

[rtb144]

It clearly says AC~ME not AC~DC i see no similarity at all :)

Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

First off, it's not piracy it's illegal copying. The fact that they have to call it piracy when it clearly has nothing to do with boarding a ship and killing people should tell you something about the nature of the accusors. And second off, just becasue it's illegal - doesn't mean that it's the slightest bit wrong, or that it is the slightest bit just or acceptable that these people were attacked. They were serving their customers, and they wern't harming others. That's what businesses (unlike Microsoft) are supposed to do.

Would you be out there cheering, "she got what she deserved because she broke the law", when Rosa-Parks was arrested for not going to the back of the bus? It is only shallow people who see right, wrong, and law in that way.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[JDevers]

Are you serious? I would agree with you if all they did was install a modchip, but they also included 77 games. That most certainly IS wrong, not just illegal.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap that's the stupidest tripe I've seen in quite a while.

Fucking moron.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[boingo82]

One could argue that a hit man is merely "serving his customers" as well. They weren't harming others? Not directly, maybe, but distributing content that you don't have the intellectual property rights to distribute is definitely unethical. It's pretty pathetic (and cliche) to throw in the Rosa Parks comparison. What next, are you going to compare this to the Nazis?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TubeSteak]

Actually Rosa Parks did get what she deserved.
At the time, it was a jail sentence
Later it was vindication

The main reason Rosa Parks is so famous is that the NAACP hand-picked her case because she was a good two shoes. They had numerous opportunities to contest the law before she decided not to get up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

The NAACP also had considered, but rejected, earlier protesters deemed unable or unsuitable to withstand the pressures of cross-examination in a legal challenge to racial segregation laws.

As for the rest of your statement, yes those two people got what they desrved. WTF did they expect would happen if they sold copyrighted games out of their store. It actually makes it worse that they were store owners and not some dude selling bootleg dvd's on the street.

You'd think people who're responsible enough to start a business, pay rent on their building, pay taxes would know enough to not blatantly violate the law.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Blue-Footed Boobie]

Wha-wha-what? On what planet are you comparing Rosa Parks to people ripping off games and seeling them illegally?

just becasue it's illegal - doesn't mean that it's the slightest bit wrong

Yes, yes it does. They were stealing games, there is no logic that can prove otherwise.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

no it doesn't, copying is not stealing. logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, I hate slashdot when the tripe like this gets moderated up.

First, the language accepts 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement' to be synonymous. Deal with it. Yes, it's a loaded term when you consider that piracy used to mean 'loot, plunder, burn, pillage, rape & murder' but that's just how language works. I'm sure there are a fair number of people in this world that were used to using the term 'fag' to describe a smoke and are now upset that the term is associated with homosexuality. Too bad.

Secondly, the morality of copyright doesn't even compare to the morality of racial segregation. That's an asinine position to take. Copyright law sees to it that publishers can't sell an author's book without paying the author. It ensures that money is paid to a songwriter when a song gets used in a radio or TV ad. Copyright law is not the problem, abuse of copyright is. That abuse can be seen in many places (DVD-CAA vs DeCSS, $cientology, etc.)

So, lets go back to that morality angle. You are implying that it is perfectly moral for a person to go buy an XBox with 70+ games preloaded on it. The publishers of those 70+ games now make no money. They decide it is not profitable to make XBox games anymore. Programmers, game designers, etc. are very unhappy, as the publisher refuses to pony up the cash to make another XBox game.

Now, you can warp that morality angle and convince yourself you are in the right because Microsoft gets no software licensing money (as you didn't buy the XBox games), but that's a really warped way to look at it. If you think that's a moral reason to pirate games^W^Winfinge on copyright then there is no way I can continue this discussion.

If you give me the line that there's no lost revenue, as you wouldn't buy the games anyway, I'll gladly point out that you were able to:

a) afford an XBox
b) afford a bigger harddrive
c) afford a modchip (or afford whatever device you need to soft-boot it)

Ugh.. I just wasted how much of my day typing this out..

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Tarnar]

A content creator deserves to be compensated for their creation. Illegal copying is denying the content creator's chance to be compensated. If a content creator wants to give out their content without compensation, that is their decision (see: public domain, open source, etc), but that decision cannot be made for them.

If you never wanted to/could afford to buy the content anyway, you have no inherit right to it in the first place.

Really, I don't like draconian IP enforcement, I don't like the DMCA, I don't like DRM, etc. However, I work for a software company. Copyright pays the bills. This business, and thousands like it (including publishers, tv / movie studios, etc) wouldn't bother opening up every morning if copyright law wasn't there to protect the fruits of our labor.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[DragonPup]

no it doesn't, copying is not stealing. logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.


Someone isn't getting paid for a game they made(loss), and someone is getting it for free(gain).

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

A content creator deserves to be compensated for their creation,

I'm sure they do, but that's a lot different than saying they should have the right to sue and toss anyone in the slammer anyone who coppies stuff.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

Someone isn't getting paid for a game they made(loss)

By that definition, it's a loss even if noone buys the game because it's overpriced.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

no it doesn't, copying is not stealing. logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.

The loss is easy to define, they lost sales. You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

First, the language accepts 'piracy' and 'copyright infringement' to be synonymous. Deal with it.

No. The language also accepts 'nigger' and 'a person of color' to be synonymous, but I don't care about what the language accepts, but rather the way the language conveys the facts.

Secondly, the morality of copyright doesn't even compare to the morality of racial segregation

You're right, copyrights are worse because in the information age there is no technology that can naturally distinguish between free speech content and copyright content. At least Rosa Parks was able to secure the right to speak up forherself.

So, lets go back to that morality angle. You are implying that it is perfectly moral for a person to go buy an XBox with 70+ games preloaded on it. The publishers of those 70+ games now make no money. They decide it is not profitable to make XBox games anymore. Programmers, game designers, etc. are very unhappy, as the publisher refuses to pony up the cash to make another XBox game.

If that happens, then it happens. Maybe the entertainment industry won't get as much dough, and will get a smaller proportion with the copyright system dead. Sorry, but freedom from controll over information is more valuable to society than star wars.

Now, you can warp that morality angle and convince yourself you are in the right because Microsoft gets no software licensing money...

Like I really care if microsoft makes or looses billions off of this. That is completely irrelavent. This is about controll of information in the information age, if you want to sacrifice that for the sake of video games then I feel sorry for you.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

A content creator deserves to be compensated for their creation.

This is untrue. First, most authors are not compensated; their works are flops and have no economic value, as far as copyright goes. But secondly, authors have never inherently deserved compensation. Copyright is an artifical system intended to benefit the public. Authors might benefit as well, but it is not the objective of copyright to reward them any more than the objective of building a highway is to pay money to road crews.

In fact, even if copyright were intended to reward authors, it would be the worst imaginable way of achieving this. Most authors, as already pointed out, don't derive any benefit from copyright. Among the few who do, most of them don't derive enough for it to be worth it; they would have made more money doing something else. Only an astonishingly small number of authors make a good living as authors. If your intent was to help them, a more efficient system would be necessary. Direct subsidies would probably do well. That we do not do that, and never have done that, is a good indicator that compensation is not a goal of copyright.

that decision cannot be made for them

As it happens, it can. We can require authors to deposit copies of their works as a prerequisite for copyright. And we can cause their copyright to expire at a date that is most beneficial to the public, regardless of whether the author likes it or not.

In fact, we could even abolish copyright altogether, if we really wanted.

If you never wanted to/could afford to buy the content anyway, you have no inherit right to it in the first place.

Quite false. There is an inherent right to free speech, and this encompasses repeating what another has said. Copyright is a temporary imposition on this, but that's all. Someone who could never have afforded to buy a copy of Tom Sawyer has an inherent right to it. We gave Twain a limited, temporary right to bar that, but we took it away again as well.

The only thing there is no inherent right to is to cause authors to create and publish works in the first place. No one can make an author write a book, but if they do, they have to play by our rules if they want a copyright. They cannot assert an inherent right to control others' use of the work, especially for no better reason than that they happen to be the author.

However, I work for a software company. Copyright pays the bills. This business, and thousands like it (including publishers, tv / movie studios, etc) wouldn't bother opening up every morning if copyright law wasn't there to protect the fruits of our labor.

And I'm a copyright lawyer. And while many authors would choose to do something else if they were not so favorably treated by copyright law, there's nothing bad about that.

The goals of the public, and of copyright law, are not just to cause original works to be created, but to cause derivative works to be created, to cause publication to occur, and to cause works to be in the public domain as fast as possible, and as close to being in the public domain during the term as possible.

If a change to law that better accomplished those goals happened to result in a number of authors leaving the field, we would nevertheless be better off without them. Heck, some authors would never leave, even if they had no copyright at all.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

The loss is easy to define, they lost sales.

So what, that is'nt a violation. Ford lost sales when toyota's entered the market too.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

You don't get it. This isn't about copyrights and "compensation". It is about free speech and who controlls information in the information age. In spite of media propaganda, there is nothing wrong or unethical at all with copying stuff.

Nazis? Sure why not. After all, how can you enforce copyrights without an omni intrusive authority?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

in spite of the propaganda that the media industry feeds us, the simple truth is that there is nothing wrong with copying stuff.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Travelsonic]

The loss is easy to define, they lost sales.

Ah, but it isn't easy to define lost sale, as logic implies that despite the impossibility to get it correct per-person, whether or not that somebody buys something after getting it for free is still up in the air as a 2 way street. I am one who buys after downloading songs, for example.

You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?

Nice red herring there, wanting to buy something and wanting to have something are not synonomous, at least not all the time. You can not want to buy something, but still get that same thing later, legally or not.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Stonehand]

...other than helping to obliterate a major motivation for bothering to produce such content in the first place, of course.

But hey, who cares about consequences?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

that is'nt a violation.

Not being able to spell isn't properly should be a violation. :/

Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.

One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

Nice red herring there, wanting to buy something and wanting to have something are not synonomous, at least not all the time. You can not want to buy something, but still get that same thing later, legally or not.

They're not synonomous these days because of the easy which products can be pirated. When talking about any product that is not easily pirated, 'wanting to have' and 'wanting to buy' are exactly the same thing. (Excluding theft, which I hope you agree is a crime.)

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

'ease'.

PS: While I'm thinking, should people be able to steal physical items from stores and only pay the cost of the raw materials, because they wouldn't have bought the item anyway?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[boingo82]

Not too much wrong with copying it for personal use, IMO - until you're copying and distributing it FOR PROFIT which these guys were doing.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Jackmn]

Incorrect.

It's would be just about impossible to make significant profits off games if people had easy free access to them after corporations spend millions designing them.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Tatsh]

I'm completely with you on this. The entire software industry (including games of course) is just screwing consumers if you ask me. The big software titles and big games, all in all they really do cost a fortune (LICENSE FEES!) for the average person (or small business) yet there are these (arrogant) people out there who pay (most of which don't know about copying). We've got the big software titles (industry standard apparently and certainly not open source) like Autodesk software, Adobe software, Microsoft software etc. $300 for Photoshop, $265 for Windows XP, and an even higher price for software like Cubase SX, etc. Meanwhile new games of all types cost $50. All of these prices I consider to be ridiculous. I really remember a time when I could buy games, they were cheaper, and they were all real. Nowadays, I only buy a game if I want to play it online, and it's always a drag to pay $50 for something that would sell more if it costed less.

I bet that there were a bunch of kids (the ignorant arrogant consumer types) who went into this store with their birthday money and didn't even know they were being charged for the modding. And after reading a comment on CNet, it seems they had plasma screens to try out games, which makes their store better than the average stores, e.g. EB games, any chain retail store (fucking screens angled at the floor up high and you have to look up to play and your neck hurts after a few minutes), etc.

I know many people will disagree, but also I'm on the side where you can't calculate the losses to the companies. I somewhat doubt that the average kid who loves Halo will go buy a Xbox, Halo 1 and 2 (about $230 at the least now), when they can go to this store and get 77 total games for a slightly higher price. They might play them, but if this store wasn't around, they would've never bought any 77 games ever. No losses incurred, in my opinion.

On a side note, as soon as I saw the name, I was sure I did business with this guy before. After looking at my PayPal history I see

Sep. 22, 2005 Payment To Pei Cai Completed Details -$22.88 USD $0.00 USD -$22.88 USD

for a PS2 laser. I didn't know he was selling Xboxes preloaded with games; of course at this time I'm glad I never bought one if I ever had interest. Hopefully no one questions me about anything.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[boingo82]

f you ask me. The big software titles and big games, all in all they really do cost a fortune (LICENSE FEES!) for the average person (or small business) yet there are these (arrogant) people out there who pay (most of which don't know about copying). We've got the big software titles (industry standard apparently and certainly not open source) like Autodesk software, Adobe software, Microsoft software etc. $300 for Photoshop, $265 for Windows XP, and an even higher price for software like Cubase SX, etc. Meanwhile new games of all types cost $50. Um.. boo hoo. I don't know about you, but I've easily made more than my (legally purchased) copies of Photoshop cost. If you have a need for industry standard photo manipulation software, or even if you just need to learn how to use it, it's WELL worth the $300. If you don't like it, I suppose you could always program your own, right? Or just, I don't know, go without? What is with the entitlement? Since when does anyone OWE you a piece of software with thousands of hours of programming invested in it, for $20?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[geminidomino]

logic says that theft is defined by ones loss, not by anothers gain.

And "lack of gain" is not the same as "loss" for those who are invariably going to claim that the "profit" from selling the overpriced crap (these are XBX games, after all) is being "stolen."

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

It's would be just about impossible to make significant profits off games if people had easy free access to them after corporations spend millions designing them.

You can't impose copyrights in the information age without microregulating the information people use and restricting peoples freedoms. Maybe in an environment where we do have freedom in the information age, the entertainment industries can't make as much of a profit. I really don't give a ratts ass. I like star wars and video games, but not that much.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

..other than helping to obliterate a major motivation for bothering to produce such content in the first place, of course.

This content you are talking about is entertainment - copyrights and the need to restrict the free flow of information in the information age to impose them is about freedom. I like video games as much as the next guy, but when push comes to shove - freedom wins out every time.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

If it's not wrong for personal use, then why should doing it for profit require hard jail time?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

What is with the entitlement?

Well, I am so glad you mentioned that. If you write a piece of whatever, why does society owe it to you microregulate how content is used all over the planent for the sake of you getting royalities. And owe it to you to do it in a way that chokes off freedom and the free flow of information in the information age? Sorry. If you're smart enough to write something usefull, then you're smart enough to figure out some other way of getting money without controlling how everyone else on the planet can copy information at their disposal.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

Still the difference between the two is that in one case, they are losing sales to a competitor who has a superior product and in the other they are losing sales because someone wants to use their goods or services without paying for it.

One of these is a core principle of our capitalist society, and the other one isn't. Can you pick which one?

Yes actually I can, because one model centers arround using government to choke off the natural supply and demand of information for the sake of incentive while the other relies on natural supply and demand of services behind the information.

I think you better read this other essay I wrote ... http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/1329 258&mode=nocomment

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

No, but if they see a barbie in the store that they like and renember with their photographic memory, then go home, then make their own plastic mold that's the exact same. Well, I'm sorry but the store has not been stolen from .... and if you say ... well barbies are easier than ever to coppy ... then that is all the more reason why such behavior should be less forbidden, not more forbidden. Shouldn't it.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[boingo82]

Because it's not OK to profit off someone else'e work without their consent.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[boingo82]

It's my piece of whatever, to do with as I see fit. Why do you think you automatically have rights to whatever content I produce?

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

It's my piece of whatever, to do with as I see fit. Why do you think you automatically have rights to whatever content I produce?

Then keep it to yourself and don't spew it all over the world and expect to control how I use it. In fact you can still do whatever the hell you want - it's your original copy pal. Rights? Perhaps you had some privacy rights before you spewed it all over the planet, anything else sounds like a personal problem buddy.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[argoff]

Because it's not OK to profit off someone else'e work without their consent.

Prove it.

By that definition, anyone who has a copyright is a hyporcrite - because no one is an island, and all knowledge builds off of the work of others who put in prior knowledge. not to mention that spewing content all over the world, like it or not, is a form of consent.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

Sure, and if you play the demo of a game at a store then go home and write your own exact copy of it then you aren't really depriving them of profits either. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for.

Need more analogy.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

Yes actually I can, because one model centers arround using government to choke off the natural supply and demand of information for the sake of incentive while the other relies on natural supply and demand of services behind the information.

The fact that we're talking about 'information' is completely irrelevant, except in that it allows for easier pirating. Capitalism boils down to: You do work, and people pay you for it. It doesn't matter whether the work is making a table or writing Doom 3.

PS: Neither the table, nor Doom 3 'wants to be free'.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[27B-6]

You, sir, are my hero.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

(replying as AC)

It's no surprise you're a lawyer, you managed to say a lot without actually disagreeing with me...

You turned the word 'content creator' into 'author'. That entirely changes the meaning of my original statement. As I said, I work for a software company. The 'authors' at my work (programmers) do not even control the copyright on their work. The 'content creator' is not the author, it is the entity that delivers the final product. You, as a copyright lawyer, are a part of that. That economic paradigm depends on copyright.

I said: "If you never wanted to/could afford to buy the content anyway, you have no inherit right to it in the first place."

I should have avoided the use of the phrase 'inherit right', but the meaning is not false. Copyright is the law, even if it is (supposed to be) temporary.

The goals of the public, and of copyright law, are not just to cause original works to be created, but to cause derivative works to be created, to cause publication to occur, and to cause works to be in the public domain as fast as possible, and as close to being in the public domain during the term as possible.

That was my point, worded better.

If a change to law that better accomplished those goals happened to result in a number of authors leaving the field, we would nevertheless be better off without them.

I believe the burden of proof is on you for that. I cannot see our economy functioning without copyright, but that just might be that I can't see too far beyond my next pay stub.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[rollingcalf]

"I believe the burden of proof is on you for that. I cannot see our economy functioning without copyright, but that just might be that I can't see too far beyond my next pay stub."

The poster mentioned a change to the law, not necessarily the elimination of copyright. Such a change could involve reducing the copyright term from umpteen decades back to something more sane like the 14 years that was defined in the original copyright laws centuries ago.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[neelm]

"Quite false. There is an inherent right to free speech, and this encompasses repeating what another has said. Copyright is a temporary imposition on this, but that's all. Someone who could never have afforded to buy a copy of Tom Sawyer has an inherent right to it. We gave Twain a limited, temporary right to bar that, but we took it away again as well."

I disagree with your view of the first admendment. My right to speak (or write) does not grant you the right to listen (or read). To do so would infringe upon my implied (1, 4, 5 and 14 admendments) right to privacy. You wouldn't claim a right to read a person's private diary would you?

When I publish something, then things will be come determined by copyright law - my act of publication shows I no longer view the item as private. Still, even though it is published you have no right to read it under the 1st admendment, that gives me the right to publish it.

Copyright takes the 1st admendment and provides only some guidelines for the gray areas. Like when I publish a book to select people only (Scientology). If you happen to get access to this book, and find it to be offensive to yourself or others, you will want to speak out on this matter. This is where my right to privacy conflicts with your right to free speech and copyright guide lines come into play. Every case is different, but I'm sure you know the factors are the amount of the work copied, and the use of that copy. As a last protection, should you be found guily of copyright, copyright law keeps you from jail time (excepting mass piracy and an intent to sell pirated copies) - very important since the threat of jail would probably silence more people from speaking up.

I do agree with you that copyright is not about "getting the author paid."

Last, for anyone (not the OP) who has read this far and wants to know why the DMCA is bad in all cases is it makes any copy of the work illegal with the threat of jail time simply by claiming a "copy protection system or device" was bypassed to make the copy (in whole or part). The "system or device" can be anything they say it is, down to a flag of 1 means allow copies and 0 means don't. How the copy will be used is irrelvent.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

I disagree with your view of the first admendment. My right to speak (or write) does not grant you the right to listen (or read). To do so would infringe upon my implied (1, 4, 5 and 14 admendments) right to privacy. You wouldn't claim a right to read a person's private diary would you?

There is actually a right to listen in the First Amendment, or else the right to speak would be easily circumvented by government. But I'm not limiting myself to just the First Amendment.

In any event, the free speech doesn't grant a right of access to private property. If I obtain a copy of your diary, I do have a right to read it. It's up to you to keep your diary private. Since I don't have a right to make you hand it over, it shouldn't be difficult for you. When you publish it and it's in every bookstore, however, you have no hope of keeping people from reading it.

Incidentally, one's constitutional rights are generally only assertable against the state, not private actors. You have no constitutional right of privacy from intrusions by me. Instead, you'd need to fall back on privacy-related torts.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[thebdj]

First, most authors are not compensated; their works are flops and have no economic value, as far as copyright goes.

This is true, but it is also quite true that most patents have no economic value. Yet, many people spend a great deal of money to get one, a lot more then on copyrights. The fact that a persons work may flop does not change the fact that they have a right to protection of the work in order to prevent others from making money off their ideas or to claim the work as their own. It gives people control over the content they create.

But secondly, authors have never inherently deserved compensation. Copyright is an artifical system intended to benefit the public.

So, if an author has no right to compensation for his work, then no one else does either? The people writing the scripts for multi-million dollar plays and movies deserve none of the money to be made off their work? You then argue that the system is artificial and made for the public's benefit. This is not really true since the exclusive rights afforded are primarily for the benefit of content creators, not the public. The laws actual prevent items from going into the public domain for decades limiting the ability of copyright material to freely spread, because in a place where people cannot afford books, movies, tv, etc. there is no ready means available to gain access to the copyrighted material.

Among the few who do, most of them don't derive enough for it to be worth it; they would have made more money doing something else.

This reminds me of a line from Whose Line where Ryan Style's (giving bad parental advice) says, "A teacher? A teacher? Honey, prostitutes make twice that money." Some people do their profession because they enjoy it. Firemen, Police Officers, Teachers, Artists, and many writers are just a few of the people who enjoy their work and who are underpaid (in many areas). The fact is copyright guarantees the artist and writers a chance to make money off their work and prevents people from freely disseminating the information by photocopying it and selling it to everyone at minimal prices or giving it away outright.

As it happens, it can. We can require authors to deposit copies of their works as a prerequisite for copyright. And we can cause their copyright to expire at a date that is most beneficial to the public, regardless of whether the author likes it or not.

Actually this is false. In the United States, Copyright protection is now automatic and no longer requires registration. Once a work has been placed into it form, it is covered by the laws and anyone can seek to exact their exclusive rights on their work.

The only thing there is no inherent right to is to cause authors to create and publish works in the first place. No one can make an author write a book, but if they do, they have to play by our rules if they want a copyright. They cannot assert an inherent right to control others' use of the work, especially for no better reason than that they happen to be the author.

You seem stuck on this idea that copyright was created to protect the public from getting eternally screwed by copyright holders. This may be somewhat true, but without copyright laws, authors would have no guaranteed protection of their works and no real repercussion against "infringers" since there would be no infringing, everything would be public domain. Copyrights make it possible to encourage authorship because now they are guaranteed some protection, but it is limited and not eternal. This is why the copyright in some way benefits the public, because it does encourage authors to create works and subsequent derivative works.

If a change to law that better accomplished those goals happened to result in a number of authors leaving the field, we would nevertheless be better off without them. Heck, some authors would never leave, even if they had no copyright at all/

This is true. Some authors love th

Re:Bzzt wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

You turned the word 'content creator' into 'author'. That entirely changes the meaning of my original statement.

I don't think so. 'Author' is the generic term used in the Constitution for the creator of a copyrightable work.

The 'authors' at my work (programmers) do not even control the copyright on their work. The 'content creator' is not the author, it is the entity that delivers the final product.

Well, there are two ways to see that sort of result. First, and most likely here, the programmers are not the authors of the work; the company is. You're their employee, you've assumed a duty to the company, the job you're told to do is to write code at the direction of the company, etc. You're basically in the same position as someone who takes dictation or a cameraman who films what his director tells him to film.

The other way is that you are the authors, but that you have obligated yourselves to transfer your rights to the company as part of the deal under which you're employed by them. This makes the company not the author per se, but the copyright holder. Since there's no reason why authors shouldn't be able to give away their copyrights if they want to (much as they could give away other things if they wanted to) we basically end up treating copyright holders who succeed the author the way we would have treated the author himself.

I believe the burden of proof is on you for that. I cannot see our economy functioning without copyright, but that just might be that I can't see too far beyond my next pay stub.

Well, I never said I thought copyright should be abolished. I just said that the metric by which we determine how successful the copyright system is not the number of authors in the field or even the number of works being created.

We could do okay without copyright at all, but what we really want is the system of laws (or no law) that results in the greatest public benefit. Since we've got a number of factors (original works created, derivative works created, works published, minimal protection during copyright, rapid entry into public domain) we have to look at the net public good, rather than focusing too much on any specific factor. Often increasing the satisfaction of one of these sorts of goods will reduce satisfaction of another (e.g. if we encourage creation and publication with a copyright, we reduce our satisfaction of the minimal protection and rapid entry goals, and tend to reduce the creation and publication of derivatives as well).

We have a baseline we can start with, however, in that we know from history that in a world without copyright we will see some degree of satisfaction of the creation and publication interests (leaning more toward the derivative side) with maximum satisfaction of the minimal protection (since there is none) and rapid entry (since it's instant). Of all the possible sorts of copyright laws we can create, we need to limit ourselves to only those that produce a net public benefit greater than we see with no copyright law at all. Furthermore, we want to try to achieve the greatest net public benefit possible, regardless of whether it fully satisfies the desires of authors; it's okay for them to benefit incidentally, but not okay for them to benefit at the expense of the public.

We also know from experience that most works have no economic value at all, that only a small fraction have any value, and that only a small fraction of those have any significant value. Authors, it turns out, are very risk-seeking. While it's true that there are very great potential rewards, it's also true that those rewards are about as likely to be had as winning the lottery.

We also know that in practice, those works with any value will be most valuable immediately. For example, a movie sells most of its tickets on its opening weekend, is most watched on PPV when it first becomes available there, rents most of its DVDs when it first hits the rental store, and sells most of its DVDs when it first becomes available

Re:Bzzt wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

The fact that a persons work may flop does not change the fact that they have a right to protection of the work in order to prevent others from making money off their ideas or to claim the work as their own.

Again, however, there is no inherent right to this. Also n.b. that neither patents nor copyrights protect mere ideas.

So, if an author has no right to compensation for his work, then no one else does either? The people writing the scripts for multi-million dollar plays and movies deserve none of the money to be made off their work?

I'm saying that they don't have a right to compensation. They might be lucky enough for the public to give them a right to compensation, but it's not automatic or magically deserved just by being an author. If an author wants a reward from the public, there had better be something in it for the public, something which more than compensates them for what they're giving away. Copyright isn't a charity, it's a quid pro quo.

You then argue that the system is artificial and made for the public's benefit. This is not really true since the exclusive rights afforded are primarily for the benefit of content creators, not the public.

It's true, alright. The exclusive rights system is just the means to a larger end. It's not an end in itself.

The laws actual prevent items from going into the public domain for decades limiting the ability of copyright material to freely spread, because in a place where people cannot afford books, movies, tv, etc. there is no ready means available to gain access to the copyrighted material.

And in the right circumstances, that could still fit with the greater public good. However, I will grant that modern copyright law has been deeply corrupted. Just because it's presently the law is no defense for the law, and does not change the ideals we should strive to live up to.

Some people do their profession because they enjoy it.

I know. And if they're willing to work for free, I'm willing to let them. Copyrights should be reserved, to the extent that we can manage it, only for those authors that would not work for free. Personally, I favor formalities as a way of filtering them out, but I grant that there's no perfect way to do it without being a mind reader.

The fact is copyright guarantees the artist and writers a chance to make money off their work and prevents people from freely disseminating the information by photocopying it and selling it to everyone at minimal prices or giving it away outright.

Yes. It's an artificial monopoly on a commodity good. A free market would be greatly beneficial to the public because copies of works would be published extremely cheaply, since each publisher is competing against the others. There's a reason why artificial monopolies are generally looked down upon. In the copyright world they're granted with the idea that there will be other benefits as well (rather like giving a cable company a monopoly for a few years so that someone will put in cables, then allowing competitors to use those cables to lower prices and provide more choices in service).

Again, though, no one is out to make sure that the authors (or cable companies) are the primary beneficiaries of the system.

Actually this is false.

Not when you deign to notice the word 'can.'

You seem stuck on this idea that copyright was created to protect the public from getting eternally screwed by copyright holders.

That's an unusual idea, since there would be no copyright holders if copyright hadn't been created yet.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is that copyright is intended to benefit the public. It accomplishes this through a system that provides some degree of benefit for authors but authorial benefit is not the goal, it's just how we exploit authors' predictable behavior.

One of my favored analogies is the farmer and the donkey. The farmer wants to go to market, so he dangles a carrot in front of the d

Re:Bzzt wrong

[neelm]

I would be interested in any links to court decesions supporting the "right to read" in the first admendment or elsewhere.

In the diary case, your actions would amount to theft not copyright infringment if I had not published it, and I should be able to sue for damages caused by the use of the material stolen (i.e. you read it to my boss showing him the sections where I say he's full of crap and he fires me for it). Even if I leave my keys in the car, leave the car running, it's still grand theft auto when you drive off in it - so I don't see it being my job to keep it private and should I fail you'll be free to do whatever with it.

The limited publication is the real issue worth debate. Scientology has used copyright to protect exactly that - the limited publication of their "secret book." The publication of an internal company memo would be the same issue.

I would also take issue that the constitution does not apply to the private sector, the wording of the 4th for example "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." etc gives me a right and does not make that right available only with respect to the goverment. I have a feeling this may get some real debate in courts with the recent Sony issues and I'll be interested in hearing the decisions made in this case since it's a prime example of the private sector violating our rights.

btw, even if I'm not in agreement with you, I do acknowlodge I am not a lawyer, and I am probably wrong on all counts, but I have enjoyed reading your well thought out posts.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still not entirely sure where you and I disagree, except maybe on very small specifics. Your overall point seems to be "Copyright should benefit the public and short copyrights best suit this."

I agree strongly with that statement and the nearly perpetual nature of copyright is troublesome, to say the least. A 10 year copyright (even 5, as you suggest) would keep most copyright-driven sectors of the economy working.

We also know from experience that most works have no economic value at all, that only a small fraction have any value, and that only a small fraction of those have any significant value.

While I agree with where you ultimately go with this point, I'm not sure how much I agree with this line. 'Significant value' can be interpreted in many ways. A person who voluntarily contributes to a GPL'ed work may not put much monetary value on their work. At the same time, they use copyright to protect their work and set terms on its use. Eh, I have a point here, but I've typed this paragraph out 4 times with and without the GPL example, but it's just not coming out right. Part of me agrees strongly with automatic copyright on all works. Just not perpetual ones.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Travelsonic]

We're talking about using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for.

There is the problem though, "using a product/service for free, that you would otherwise have to pay for" in itself is too broad of a concept to judge outright, since there are illegal ways to do this, there are also legal ways to do this as well, believe it or not... even though this is not what we are talking about here, I think in debates like this specifics matter.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

Sorry, I think my statement takes that into account. If you could get it for free, then you -wouldn't- otherwise have to pay for it. But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free) and still use it for free, that's where we run into problems.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[Travelsonic]

The problem with your argument is that it is based upon faulty backing.

If you could get it for free, then you -wouldn't- otherwise have to pay for it.

This is not true all of the time however, much your other definition of having to pay for it ("But If you DO have to pay for it (ie: There is no legal way to get it for free)" since these are conditions that always have exceptions to them that prevent them from being a sturdy definition for debating purposes.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[TeraCo]

You do know what free means right? If you have to pay for it, it's not free and conversely if you get it for free (with the blessing of the provider of the goods or services), you didn't have to pay for it.

Re:Bzzt wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

Your overall point seems to be "Copyright should benefit the public and short copyrights best suit this."

Well, a lot of people would say short terms. However, I think that copyright should be reduced in length and scope. Some works -- boat hulls, chip masks qua chip masks, architecture -- shouldn't be copyrightable at all. More exceptions should be added so that acts which presently are infringing are made legal. I'd also like to see formalities strengthened, work for hire and transfers strengthened, certain practices (e.g. EULAs and DRM) and copyright made mutually exclusive. And yes, I'd like to see terms shortened dramatically, and made more granular by using multiple short terms (so that if an artist loses interest in having a copyright, we don't have to wait long for it to expire).

Short terms are probably the most called-for reform, but I think it's insufficient by itself.

A 10 year copyright (even 5, as you suggest) would keep most copyright-driven sectors of the economy working.

My general feeling has been that 5 year terms would be best, and that for most works, they could be renewed a few times, if the author opted to do so. Some sorts of works -- software is the only example right now -- age so rapidly that 5 years is plenty of time for most of the value of the work to be had, but for the public to still receive a work in the public domain that has some use, rather than being totally archaic.

But this is just an idea. Some actual studies into how long works retain value would be needed so as to come up with hard numbers. I suspect I'm being too generous.

'Significant value' can be interpreted in many ways.

I meant economic value. Copyright is not about fame, or artistic merit. It's about fortune. Artists who create because they want respect or create for art's sake don't need copyrights to provide an incentive; they're already incentivized.

Part of me agrees strongly with automatic copyright on all works. Just not perpetual ones.

Well, I'm prepared to accept a statutory recreation of something like the old common law copyright. Thus, if an author has his manuscript stolen and published, he has a claim. However, protection on unpublished works should be relatively minor and short-lived, lest it be abused. We might borrow a page from patent interferences and enquire as to whether the work was still being developed or had been left to rot. And we might check to see if there had been any indication, aside from the self-serving testimony of the author bringing the suit, of whether the work was intended to be published eventually. And we might put a cap on it anyway, lest works that are hundreds of years old and unpublished, end up being protected unduly. (e.g. if people from the year 2525 find a 20th century MS)

However, the main system should require registration promptly around the time of publication. This serves the important function of seperating out authors who don't care enough about their work to fill out a form, etc., from those who do. The former probably were not incentivized by copyright, or they would treat copyright formalities seriously. The latter probably were, and are willing to jump through minor hoops for this, just as they might in order to get an agent, or a business license. The requirements of registration should be minimal, while still respecting the needs of the public.

Ultimately, I think there is a difference between, say, these /. posts, and a novel. Posts ordinarily shouldn't be copyrighted, whereas a novel is the sort of thing where it's expected. Now, if someone wants to buck either trend, that's fine. But a registration formality for copyright strikes me as a good way to tell them apart and limit protection to where it is needed. If you have a better method, feel free to tell us about it.

Why is

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Why is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement handling this and not another agency? Did they find this via imports of mod chips? I can already imagine the **IA lobbying for a new Federal department inside the FBI to deal with this sort of stuff.

I'm intrested in what game programmers / creators think of the penalties that could be imposed. Would you prefer a large fine to jail time?

Re:Why is

[Anonymous Coward]

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security. Post 9/11, the FBI has switched gears to become almost entirely focused on terrorism. After the PATRIOT ACT, ICE was created as the largest domestic law enforcement agency - and has since picked up domestic law enforcement where the FBI left off. The title is a misnomer, ICE operates in all LE theatre's including drug interdiction, couterfeiting, money laundering and related financial crimes, human trafficking, etc. The agency has not yet permeated the US collective unconscious yet, being only 4 years old, but it will in time.
I also happen to work for them.

Re:Why is

[MadMidnightBomber]

Would you prefer a large fine to jail time?

No.

Re:Why is

[Anonymous Coward]

I do computer support for ICE.

They were probably involved because either they were on a task force with other agencies (ATF, FBI, Marshall's service, city police, county sherrif, etc) that were investigating this

-or-

there were illegals involved somewhere along the way and that wasn't reported by the reporter (either because the reporter doesn't care or the reporter knows most Americans don't care and didn't bother to report it).

No need to invoke the DMCA

[Whiteout]

Remember that these guys could have been prosecuted under perfectly servicable copyright laws; it's not as if we need a law as divisive as the DMCA to bring people like this to justice.

Copyright laws, together with the concept of Fair Use, are reasonable; the DMCA is a corporate-sponsored attack on Fair Use, and serves no other purpose.

Andy

Re: Linux on XBOX = illegal?

[jnadke]

To elaborate, this is the exact charge that could set a precident that scares me: "conspiring to traffic in a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system". For a long time, Linux on xbox was considered legal as no code was stolen. Only the copy protection system was broken, using flaws in the hardware (unlike DeCSS). No actual code is altered in the process. This could also prevent people who prefer their privacy from disabling Trusted Computing. Generally, the rule of thumb has been "you bought the hardware, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't touch our software". This would change that.

Too bad..

[Sylver Dragon]

It would have been nice to see a test case for the DMCA. However, this is going to be settled fast.
From the article:
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox

Even without the DMCA crap, these guys are screwed. Most likely the lawyers for the defendants will settle for a fine and a suspended sentence. Nothing will be tried, and the DMCA will continue to exist as a nice chilling spectre.

What do /. editors do all day?

[supabeast!]

Because they sure as hell aren't reading the articles before they slap them on the front page...

Re:What do /. editors do all day?

[EmagGeek]

Aren't you using the word "editor" a little loosely there? If you recall, Slashdot isn't really journalism.. it's just a bunch of 1990's left-over wanna-be importants pretending...

In Other ACME News...

[fohat]

Wile E. Coyote was seen leaving the same store with a sledghammer, an Xbox and a very large rubber band.

SO WHAT!!!

[argoff]

This is not a "Your rights online" story, it's a story about blatent copyright violation.

Listen to what you're saying. These people aren't bank robbers, rapists, con artists, gangsters - they are simply copying and modding stuff, and for that they are going to get hard time? WTF, next time someone drives 5mph over the speed limit - would you recommend death by lethal injection? Next time someone someone fails to report that extra 50 cent tip they made on their taxes, would you recommend life imprisonment? (with boy lover bubba) Next time someone tears the label off the matress, how about just skipping the trial and beat the F*** out of them right there ... really, I sense a serious values problem here.

Microsoft is a hypocrite, if they support these kinds of punishments for simply copying - then I can only imagine what they deserve to get for anti trust behavior themselves.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[milkman_matt]

So you're saying, all games for the xbox should be free?

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[masdog]

They're copying things and selling them when they have no right to do that. They don't have the rights to any of the 77 games that were copied and included in the sale of the Xbox.

Did these guys pay Microsoft or the game distributers the retail price for each game that was copied every time it was sold?

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[argoff]

So you're saying, all games for the xbox should be free?

I really don't care if MS makes a million per xbox sold. This isn't about that, it's about criminalizing people who copy in the information age.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[argoff]

They're copying things and selling them when they have no right to do that.

Sure they do. I can make a copy of the post you created and sell that too if I wanted - there is every right to do that.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[milkman_matt]

I really don't care if MS makes a million per xbox sold. This isn't about that, it's about criminalizing people who copy in the information age.

So it's OK that a store was giving away free copies of games on modded XBoxes that they were selling? Do you also think it should be legal to mod your XBox, stick a 200GB HDD in it, grab a subscription to gamefly or some such company, and copy hundreds of games to your HDD?

You do realize, don't you, that if everybody's stealing games the GAME companies don't get paid and go under, and we end up with no games right? This doesn't really have anything to do with MS. I think it should be legal to mod an XBox, afterall, it's your hardware. I do not, however, think it should be -legal- to copy/buy/obtain/sell copies of games.

Sure, maybe making a copy for a buddy a'la the days of cassette tapes, 'cause after-all, he may just as easy borrow it from you, I can see how someone could twist that around to justify it as being right (although I don't agree with it, had your friend loaned it to you they wouldn't be selling a copy anyway) but a store -handing out- copies of 77 games at once to people...? That shouldn't be legal in any way at all. That's like saying that the bootleg telesync DVDs sold for $5 a piece on the sidewalk should be legal.

Hell, in your world every game store in the country should just start buying one copy of every game, and sell the copies, then everyone wins... right?

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

i think he's saying they shouldn't be facing hard time, but a fine of some sort instead. i could be wrong though.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are what we call a game fanboy. You are so interested in propping up your habit that you are willing to hamstring your right to copy content.

Fuck off, and take your crappy game industry with you. You complain about the *AA and not being able to time-shift your TV shows, but then you think the gaming industry should have the same cartel.

Maybe it is time for the game industry to catch up to the rest of the world and the Information Age. They need to figure out a different way of making money, not prop their existing business model up with legislation and goons. Maybe it is time for iGames, 99c games you can download. Maybe it is time for networked games (xbox live... whathaveyou). Maybe you should stop pretending like the rest of us are stupid enough to spend $50 / game for the crap that is the gaming industry.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in this country you don't.

Re:SO WHAT!!!

[Threni]

> This isn't about that, it's about criminalizing people who copy in the
> information age.

Yeah, I got equally upset when I heard about this guy getting sent to jail for raping someone. We live in a so-called free country, and yet here was this judge telling someone what he could and couldn't do! Outrageous!

Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[dindi]

I simply do not agree on modding being illegal. I still feel that by modding an Xbox i get more functionality, I paid for the hardware and if i own it I can smash it, mod it, or do whatever I like to do with it in the privacy of my home.

Now selling 77 games on the HDD is not a good thing, but being able to play a copy of a game comes handy sometimes.

E.G. I am the owner of the original game "Ghost recon Summit strike" NTSC but since I do no have Live I play on XBC or KAI.
Since I figured that the game is only compatible with the same system (NTSC vs NTSC and PAL vs PAL) I cannot play with my european buddies online unless I have a PAL version, and even if I buy a pal version I cannot play it in my unmodded NTSC Xbox. So I have a copy of the PAL game just for the purpose to be eble to play overseas.

But that is just one reason I own a modchip and why I refuse to buy a game 2 times. (UBI I love you guys, make the next GR playable all-over just like any other developers and I won't own an illegal copy I promise.

Now when it comes to game modding on consoles, ripping the game (whether you own it or steal it) is also a requirement (or to be able to make a custom DVD with the new files) .

Same goes with extra maps (without live).

But still this is just the game part, when you want to use your box as an AVI player, listen to online radio and etce..tc..tc

What is next? I buy a honda and there will be an eula that if I put on an extra exhaust pipe, or change the air filter I am modding illegally? Oh yeah, I circumvented the rev limiter because my bike moved like grandma's.... everyone does that .....

If it goes like this we will see computers with locks on it that only repairmen can open, and the police will come to you and check if your computer is still sealed, if not you pay $$$$ and go to jail.

A bit of info: I asked my local retailer for an unmodded Xbox. All I heard is : are you crazy? Why would you sell that here?

I mentioned it before, but here in Costa Rica a game goes for $80 for ps2/xbox while a copy goes for $5-$6.

Now which is selling better when a McDonalds worker makes around $200 a month ?

I personally order games used from Amazon or Ebay for like $15 a piece, but many people have no US shipping address here, and do not own a credit card, nor they want to pay for a game that's $80 and you are missing half the functionality as it is Xbox live only, as they barely have a dialup at home.

Just some inside look why piracy goes on here..... Well now returning to the LA story, I am sure those guys who bought these preloaded boxes made more than $200 a month, and I am sure I would be ashamed to get anything like thet in the US where you have $10 used games on storeshelves.

Oh, I saw ads last year around Christmas on TV advertising chipped consoles with 5 games included. I am 99% sure that those were copies too.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[ross.w]

What is next? I buy a honda and there will be an eula that if I put on an extra exhaust pipe, or change the air filter I am modding illegally? Oh yeah, I circumvented the rev limiter because my bike moved like grandma's.... everyone does that .....</blockquote>

Actually that is illegal in NSW, if it affects the noise certification. And if your exhaust doesn't have a sticker on it that says it is legally quiet, your bike will be defected even if it is not noisy.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[sseymour1978]

...I won't own an illegal copy I promise.

I personally order games used from Amazon or Ebay for like $15 a piece,


Just a thought: How do You really know games in e-bay are legal.


What is next? I buy a honda and there will be an eula that if I put on an extra exhaust pipe, or change the air filter I am modding illegally? Oh yeah, I circumvented the rev limiter because my bike moved like grandma's.... everyone does that .....

In EU if you want to change headlights for example you need to make sure you buy certified ones. The same is almost for everything.. Also there is limitations of what you can actually do with engine. I've heard that in Finland there is limit on additional horsepower you can get with performance tuning. Its like you cant go over +100 bhp over than stock, or whatever.

Actually there is lot of rules around...

Some of them are evil. Some are good. Depends from situation, and who you are..

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[dindi]

ebay and games: usually you can tell from the packaging or looking at the pics, or reading the sellers info on the item. Many state clearly that the item is an original and not copy.

e.g. xbox game not in a green cover is an alarm, so is someone selling way under price, shipping from taiwan, but there are many more, like the lack of a manual.

If I buy a copy (never happened yet) I ask for my money back if the seller does not agree I will tell them that I will report the issue to whatever agencies and ebay/amazon. That will get my money back for sure. A negative feedback also puts a mark on the seller.

On the rules: I lived in europe and know that there are rules, but they do not come from the manufacturer. You mess with your car, you need a permit, but it's not like the manufacturere enforcing you not to open the hood.

Here it is different, just to give an example I have e street legal quad, a blaster 200 2 stroke.
Just passed the regulatory exam and have plates and everything. On the side of it there is like a 30cm sign: not for highway use, never ride it on paved surfaces.

My motorbike has offroad (knobby) tires on it from time to time and I know it would not be possible in europe: it says "not for highway use" .

But hey, the highway has holes the size of my car in it, so I guess it does not matter then.

Also on the exhauset: people take the car for inspection with the stock, then put on a different pipe for use. No one seems to care, unless you are really loud. But than again, why should I be restricted on my 250cc to a decibel level that is exceded by just the engine noise of many road vehicles. Offroad is a different story.

Then again, it is just an argument, I ride with the factory pipe on my bike with a spark arrester, so that bike would be street legal even for California green sticker (minus the knobbies in the dry season - rainy season sucks with knobbies on asphalt, too much moldy/slippery spots you do not want to ride on an offroad tire).

I just got a double flat tire hitting one on my car last weekend (yep, both right tires jumped off the rim) .....

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[dindi]

I beleive at places like that you can find a green sticker legal pipe at stores that keep the limits.

Here they did not check any noise levels at the 2-year inspection (green/road legal sticker).

I ride a Brasilian made Honda XR and the pipe is stock and reasonably silent with a spark arrester (i do not want to set the forest on fire or anything like that).
I modded the air intake though for some time, that made the bike louder, but then again, unless you are crazy loud, no one will say a word. It is not like europe when police stops you for all kinds of shit.

I drove in hungary, and just got sick of it. Police would stop you 3 times a day just to find some shit, and if they don't they will look for your emergency aid package or the extra light bulb to put a fine on you. Even that my car was always in order I just hated the constant crap.

Here I was stopped like 5 times in 5 years, and got 1 ticket altogether for speeding. I guess that would be the normal.

I was going to the beach, topless, and without shoes with some friends from spain, and they told, that it is illegal to drive barefeet, and without a shirt on. Huhh... I guess i don't want to drive there.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[Buran]

It's legal to modify your vehicle because it is now legally your property, and the manufacturer has no say in what you do with it, including using aftermarket add-ons (better choice, often lower prices) other than what the maker offers. However, this is subject to rules stating that you have to follow the local vehicle code.

For example, I'm a VW Golf owner. Hella manufacturers aftermarket taillamps that look better than the ones they supply to VW (same maker, yup); some are variations on the stock red theme with some clear bits, and have built-in reflectors as required by vehicle code in many places. Some are the same product but are in different colors (blue, green, smoked) and include a pair of red reflectors along with a diagram showing where to mount them on the rear bumper.

It is legal to either purchase the red/clear ones, or the other-colored ones and install the reflectors on the bumper, but it is not legal to install the colored ones without the reflectors because you then violate the vehicle code and it is not legal to operate a vehicle on public roads that doesn't conform to the code.

But this fact doesn't in itself make it illegal to mod your car.

(Note: I see people with illegal taillights all the time; sadly, the cops don't seem to care... all people need to do to conform is use adhesive-back red reflectors, but they can't even be bothered to spend the few bucks required for the basic stuff. sigh. My own Golf is modded but still has all of the safety devices it came with along with all reflectors and lights).

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[Technician]

(UBI I love you guys, make the next GR playable all-over just like any other developers and I won't own an illegal copy I promise.

I don't have a game console because I have kids. Kids in a hurry with friends over don't care where they put the disks. They get knocked over and next thing you know it somebody has stepped on a $50 disk.

Be honest. How may stores will exchange a damaged disk that's about 1 year old for 50 cents?

I copy everything. Music, Games, etc and put the originals away and use work copies. Some disks don't copy. They don't get played, they get exchanged.

Until there is a sane kid proof exchange program for no-hastles exchanges, I'll work from work copies and software that installs and runs from the hard drive. Using the CD as a dongle for the game is not an option.

In the old days the dongle was screwed to the printer port. Nowdays, your kids get to install, remove, and store them. It's the kid handeling that cuts the service life of the dongle ware.

My biggest $ loss to date for a single damaged CD is a copy (original) of Microsoft's Office. The 52X drive shreded it on a re-install. Think the store will exchange it for me? Yea Right. Installed Open Office instead.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[Lee_in_KC]

"What is next? I buy a honda and there will be an eula that if I put on an extra exhaust pipe, or change the air filter I am modding illegally? Oh yeah, I circumvented the rev limiter because my bike moved like grandma's.... everyone does that ....."

I don't know how to tell you this - that's been illegal since 1974 or so, at least in the US. I'm pretty sure damn near all European countries have the same emissions laws (or very similar).

For every law we have people telling us why the law is bad. The problem is the people that are telling us the law is bad are people that are breaking the law in the same spirit as we were trying to avoid by creating it. Sure there are legit reasons to mod a box, but show me a person that mods the box only

Also, eople here are going on about "the punishment is too harsh", etc. Guys, the people are only CHARGED and the burden of proof to bring charges is pretty slim. These two are a long way from breaking rocks at Attica. A couple charges will be dropped, they will plea to something else, they will pay a large fine and deservedly these two morons will lose their store.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[dindi]

"that's been illegal since 1974 or so"

Sorry to say, but the rev limiter mod is totally legal. It does not affect emmissions on normal operation. All you get is peak performance for a few seconds when you really need it (e.g. emergency or on off road when you cannot shift back for some reason (damn big rocks, logs, whatever))

All emission tests (at least here) are made on 2000RPM on a car (1800cc) and on the base rev (without pressing the gas)

On my bike it was done on base rev (no choke, no gas). Same on our quad.

You do not want to tell me that they take the rev box apart on an inspection and see if the limiter cable is cut or not.

Obviously you won't rev it over the normal limit while driving on the street, unless you have a reason.

I know reasoning on the streat sometime breaks the law, that's how I got stopped the other weekend speeding at 110 at the 80 limit.

I know in europe my licence might have suffered, here I just politely told, that I was taking over under the limit, and the idiot speeded up, so I had to finish the take over, as there was no other way to avoid the car behing me already closing the gap. I dunno, I grew up in european laws, and while sometimes miss them, sometimes it just makes sense to do some explanation and then go without a fine.

That's why I can ride a knobby tire without the police saying a word, they simply know that 50% of roads are crap, and the other 50 is dirt roads. Now in europe my bike would loose the plates on spot, and I would be forced to drive "dual sport" tires on dirt roads and most likely have an accident because the lack of traction.

I agree, laws should be kept, but laws should not be always written by people who have no clue about a bunch of things.

Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal

[dindi]

I agree with you, and I hate stores.

There should be a free replacement of software (with cost of disk paid). That means probably like $1 or less.

I have 2 copies of windows legally, and I run "warezed serials" as one is a laptop only installation, the other lost the serial number (yes I just lost it when moving). I absolutely have no idea how a legal workorund would look for this, so I have legal windows disks, and cannot update because I am stuck with copied serials, and a crippled laptp version.

Disk damage: never really happened to my original disks, however I hate CD's so I just rip them and listen to the copies. I guess that is illegal too, but how nicer is it to have 2 copies boiling in the car mp3 player with 10hours of music, other than dragging 10 originals and having them unusable in half a year. I mean I know people who had their entire case of CD (100 cds) stolen from their cars, that must suck.

On the games: I have 1 on the HDD for extra maps, and handle my originals with extreme care. Always in the case, clean and no touching. I think they can last like that.

Actually my ps2 scratched some disks, thanks to luck they were burnt movies. Oh yes, sometimes when I rent a movie and have no time to watch it, I would copy it to a rewritable DVD, so I can watch it later. Sometimes I have to do that, as my devices are not all region free, or they just refuse to play here and there for no apparent reason. Then again it must be illegal too, but if I rented it I want to watch it. It does not mean that I will keep it (that's why it is on a rw).

Not so quick to cheer...

[Jack Johnson]

Yeah, this appears to be justified use of the DMCA. However, most people agree that what they were doing was criminal without the letter of the DMCA. This application is a strategic move to build credibility to the law which many people rightfully see as absurd.

RIAA/MPAA: "Look Congress, look! This is why we need even stricter penalties and more latitude in DMCA '06. These vile lawbreakers aren't getting the message."

righto bud

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosa Parks (who does not have a - in her name) did not steal sandwiches from a restaurant and subsequently sell them on the street, she refused to get up so that a white man could sit down. What she did was refuse to get up in a zero-sum scenario where either she had to stand or he did, and in the eyes of the law she was wrong because she was black.

In this case, thanks to the wonders of digital copying, (metaphor breakdown approaching) they were not only able to steal the sandwiches, but replicate them a few hundred times before selling them. Yes, depriving a publisher of money they would have earned is a kind of damage. But since you think depriving others of property is OK, I'll be raiding your fridge at about 2:00am tonight. Could you also unplug your computers and leave them in on the porch? They're so hard to unplug in the dark. Thanks!

Actually, there is plenty to say

[argoff]

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?

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[rworne]

No it would not. But look where this case is going:

We have: 77 copyright violations plus a circumvention device and DMCA violation all in one neat little court case. You cannot argue that the console was being sold for homebrew app development in this particular case. It's just an attempt (or at least appears to be one) to wrap up console pirates and modders into one neat little package. What we have here is selling a mod chip to facilitate software piracy. It's pretty clear-cut here and it sucks for everybody.

Now whenever someone gets busted in the future for mod chips, all they will do is point to this case and say "See! It's really all about piracy!" Even if no pirated games were included in that particular bust.

What a nice Christmas present to give to Microsoft (and Sony, RIAA, MPAA...)

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[I'm Don Giovanni]

What would you guess the percentage of modded Xboxes used to play pirated games is? 90%? 95%?

Let's even make it easier - what would you guess the percentage of modded PS2s used to play pirated games is? 99.99%? 99.9999%? (Modded PS2s aren't used for "homebrew" at all.)

Face it - nearly all modded consoles are used to play pirated games.

(Oh, and in Xbox's case, even the 10% (that's being generous) used for the Xbox Media Center, are being used illegally as well as the XBMC was created in violation of Microsoft copyrights, as it used a leaked copy of the Xbox SDK without agreement to the Xbox SDK license.)

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[rworne]

I don't know what those percentages are and neither do you. I only know from my personal experience. I have two modded XBOXes and both run XBMC exclusively. Neither of them have any pirated games, so I'd say from my experience 0% of them are used for piracy. Common sense tells me that quite a few of them (if not a majority) are used for such nefarious purposes, but there are some users who don't pirate.

As far as XBMC is concerned, if MS has a problem with the XBMC distribution, then let them go after the distributors who compile and release builds. I'm sure MS would love the press that that would generate.

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[westlake]

These people are not criminals, and the punishment is WAY WAY out of line in relation to the supposed harm done to society.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Shoplifting 77 boxed games from Walmart is worth 1-3 years hard time in your county lock-up or state pen on the felony charge. Why should it be different when you conspire with a clerk to have the games loaded on a hardrive, for one-tenth their retail price?

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[argoff]

Shoplifting 77 boxed games from Walmart is worth 1-3 years hard time in your county lock-up or state pen on the felony charge.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it - Walmart still has their original coppies. Get it.

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[westlake]

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it - Walmart still has their original copies. Get it.

No, I don't get it.

When our local mini-mart began taking losses from shoplifting, it cut back on stock that could most easily be stolen. The five-fingered discount hurt everyone.

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[argoff]

Copying is not stealing. I repeat copying is not stealing. Hey my car, if you stole it I would be very violated - but if you made a copy, then hell have 2, in fact it's a geo metro, there are 10 million - I am not violated. Hey, it's bullshit morality. And if the entertainment industry can't make it in that kind of world, then tough shit. I like video games as much as the next guy, but not enough to hand over controll of contnet in the information age to the media lords.

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't get it.

When our local mini-mart began taking losses from shoplifting, it cut back on stock that could most easily be stolen. The five-fingered discount hurt everyone.

Piracy != Theft

Honestly, if you cannot understand the difference then you shouldn't even frequent this site as your critical reasoning skills are not up to snuff.

Re:Actually, there is plenty to say

[zippthorne]

Ok. What is it then?

Please explain how piracy is good/bad under your framework and what, if anything should be done about it. Also explain how, under this framework, you encourage the production of entertaining games to improve the quality of life for as many people as possible.

guess what - copying is NOT stealing

[argoff]

In case the subject needs any more explanation, please see....

http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/1329 258&mode=nocomment
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147420&cid =12354088

Re:guess what - copying is NOT stealing

[masdog]

Something tells me that taking a piece of software (or in this case, 77 pieces of software), copying them from a physical disk to another medium, and including them in a sale without compensating the manufacturer of the software is stealing.

Re:guess what - copying is NOT stealing

[argoff]

probably the movie industry, who also tells you that copying stuff is like boarding a ship and murdering people (Piracy)

Re:guess what - copying is NOT stealing

[masdog]

Piracy is more than murdering people. It also commonly has a theft component, which I suspect is acted upon more than the murderous rampages.

This is what its supposed to do

[Freaky Spook]

Im glad that they discovered & prosecuted against this crime, it shows their can be good uses of DMCA.

The problem i have with DMCA is that it is not balanced between the Copyrighter & the Consumer, it puts all the power in the Copyright holder & gives nothing to the consumer at all, there are no protections or basic rights given at all, this was a law that was inherintly flawed from the beginning because the consumer was not included in it.

Next year in Australia because of the FTA we are looking at adopting the DMCA in Australia as law and a lot of people are not looking forward to it.

This law puts every user at risk of abuse because there is little provision for checks of abuse against customers nor is there any solid defence against a DMCA violation, its basically as draconian as accusing someone of being a witch.

Re:This is what its supposed to do

[Buran]

Uhm ... there already are laws against pirating software and reselling it. Why do we need to invoke the DMCA here? We don't, unless we're making it illegal to resell modified items, which makes every single "I'm selling my modded vehicle" classified-ad post illegal on the VW/Audi/BMW/Volvo/kitchen-sink family of sites I frequent, along with the site of the local VW club. But guess what ... they're not illegal, so it's DMCA FUD.

The real story is that these people were violating laws against selling pirated software.

Re:This is what its supposed to do

[Anonymous Coward]

"Im glad that they discovered & prosecuted against this crime, it shows their can be good uses of DMCA."

this isn't a good use of the dmca. there's nothing wrong with modding an xbox. the only thing done wrong here is the selling the hd with games that the end user didn't purchase. which doesn't require the dmca to prosecute.

there's nothind redeeming in the dmca at all.

Re:This is what its supposed to do

[Stonehand]

*sigh*

Modding in general is not illegal -- much like modding your car is not. Heavily tinting your windows, however, is frequently frowned upon.

Offering modding services specifically to bypass a digital access protection measure for copyrighted material, however, normally is unless you fall under certain exemptions in the law.

As for why they're invoking it, it would be rather curious if they have such a clear-cut violation and do *not* invoke it. It gives them leverage -- one more charge to bargain away -- and removes the ability of defense counsels in less blatant cases to complain about selective prosecution.

Just Whose XBox is it?

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Re:Just Whose XBox is it?

[TrappedByMyself]

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.

"Doctrine of First Sale", as you call it, allows you to resell the device. It does not allow you to do illegal things with the device. The people in question were using the modded XBox to illegally copy and store games. Buying a magazine doesn't give you the right to run around and give people really bad paper cuts.


Dear god, I hope "Doctrine of First Sale" doesn't start showing up in every other copyright post. Please people, don't let it become the next "prior art"

Re:Just Whose XBox is it?

[Buran]

It is important because it means that the manufacturer doesn't have any control with what you do with it after you buy it. You bought it; you can smash it with a hammer if you want or you can open it up and smash just part of it if you want or you can add something to it. It's yours; they have no say.

However, what a lot of people are missing here is that these people were putting illegal software on the boxes. That's the problem, not the fact that they were changing their own property, as they saw fit, and reselling it -- which IS allowed by the law. I can buy a computer, refinish the case in another color, and resell it, and the original manufacturer can't stop me from doing that.

Re:Just Whose XBox is it?

[Stonehand]

Intentionally profiting from assisting an illegal act tends to be frowned upon. If you're offering the infringing content AND the device meant to allow its use, it's hard to argue innocence.

The DMCA would be useful against less careless vendors offering the built-in mod chip with a knowing wink, but who aren't actually doing the infringing themselves -- just taking advantage of the market of people who want to infringe but don't want to do the necessary modding themselves.

Re:Just Whose XBox is it?

[EvanED]

That's the problem, not the fact that they were changing their own property, as they saw fit, and reselling it -- which IS allowed by the law.

No, it's NOT allowed by the law. Whether you agree with the DMCA or not, I don't see any wiggle room in the position that they broke it. The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms except in limited circumstances, none of which appear to apply. They circumvented the XBox's copyright protection mechanisms. Case closed.

It's not like the Lexmark case, where you could argue that the company selling printer refills reverse engineered it for compatibility, or even that there was no copyright in place to protect. Whether it SHOULD be illegal is also another issue. But the only way you can say that the XBox modification is legal is if you think those provisions of the DMCA are unconstitutional. (There's a case to be made there but I doubt any court would agree.)

(BTW, my thoughts on the DMCA are as follows. I liken the circumvention of copyright protection to picking someone's lock. I lock my door deliberately to keep people I don't want in my house outside; MS puts a TCPAish chip in the XBox to keep programs that they don't want running from running. The analogy is far from perfect (or even good) because it's MY house and it's not MS's XBox, but stick with me for a moment.

(Now, pretty much anywhere if I get locked out of my house I can break in. In most places, I can carry around a lock pick set and break in using that so I don't damage anything. To me, this is like circumventing the protection for purposes that would be otherwise legal; running Linux, running a backup of a game you made, etc. This should be legal. (Just as I think jurdictions that outlaw mere posession of lockpicks are in the wrong.)

(Now, breaking into someone else's house is illegal, just as breaking copyright laws is illegal. But if you break into someone eles's house using a lockpick, many jurisdictions will add the posession of a lockpick onto your robbery charges. The analogy would be if you circumvent an active copyright protection scheme in the course of committing another crime, than the penalties would be made more severe. In both situations I see this as being a perfectly reasonable solution.)

bungie link

[Anonymous Coward]

Jason Jones? Xbox? L.A.? ACME?

Jason Jones = founder of Bungie (Halo/Marathon)
L.A. = Bungie West (before being pwn3d by M$)
Pei Cai = arranges a meal (thanks Google)
ACME prepares meal = smoked fish (Google)

hmmm...bungie west, smoked fish...

Oni!?!
Coming out for Xbox360! ^_^

DCMA

[phorm]

Yes, but the problem is that selling copied games is an offense of copyright infringement, not really circumvention. If they had sold the games without a modded console would they have been charged, or if they just modded the console?

Re:DCMA

[rworne]

Probably this was a tie-in offense. That is, in order to give strength to the "no mod" provisions of the DMCA (via the anti-circumvention clauses) they cherry pick a case that also includes multiple copyright violations to give weight to their argument that console modders are nothing more than filthy pirates.

Re:DCMA

[bedroll]

If they had sold the games without a modded console would they have been charged, or if they just modded the console?

Short answer: Yes, they probably would have.

As that grandparent had noted the story makes the modding out to be the real wrong doing, when infringement truly was. However, the enforcement of the DMCA almost always has big business in mind, and thus I think that the enforcers were making the modding out as the crime as much as the press did. Big business, in this case Microsoft, does not want these people messing with their products. They're trying to send a message without testing the limits of the DMCA. That message, of course: We say modding is illegal.

Granted, I agree with them that this modding was illegal. Reading the article it becomes fairly clear that the mods they were doing were aimed more at pirating games than legitimate uses. The thing is that it probably would have been illegal even if the DMCA were better written, and it is what the DMCA should have been carefully worded to include. This is something we shouldn't be cheering for as a DMCA success, we should be jeering the fact that the DMCA was so poorly worded that this is bundled in with modding the XBox so it can run Linux, or selling replacement ink cartridges that are refillable.

Ultimately this is akin to reinacting prohibition because drunk driving is a problem, it looks good on paper, but in reality the alcoholics would just go to speakeasies and drive drunk on their way home. The DMCA has been used effectively in so very few cases against those who are willfully committing major infringements, yet it has been used effectively against so many who are incidental infringers, minor infringers, or shouldn't be considered infringers at all. This is just one case where it can get good PR.

Re:DCMA

[Anonymous Coward]

For all of you who think the copyright issues are to bolster the DCMA charges...From the article...

"The modifications allowed the machines to play pirated video games"

Som not only were the games pirated, but the mods allowed the games to be played.

Re:DCMA

[kyofunikushimi]

If they had sold the games without a modded console would they have been charged, or if they just modded the console?

only one way to find out... wish me luck!

Modding is ok with me.

[GmAz]

My Xbox is modded, mainly because I am too lazy to get up and switch the game disc when I want to play a new game. But come on, pirate 77 games and sell it bundled. Ya, talk about someone that was slapped with a stupid stick a few too many times.

That is explains it...

[tktk]

I've been to that store. It's large, something like 2 or 2.5 times the size of your average EB Games or Gamestop. IMO, the selection wasn't that great--mainly just the recent titles only and, few, if any, used games. They supplimented the games with T-shirts and other gaming-related items, like anime DVDs, etc.

I always wondered how they stayed in business. Guess I know now.

What people don't want to hear

[argoff]

... is that accepting copyrights is the same as accepting that is OK to have an information police state for the sake of "protecting" video games. While I like video games the same as the next guy, giving people hard time for illegal copying (and modding) is a morally shallow solution no matter how you look at it. Which means that this raid was unjust no matter how you look at it too .....

How can we RTFA when the link is bad?

[Buran]

Stupid editing strikes again.

The page you've requested cannot be found.

For a listing of our latest stories and features go to News.com.

Search News.com

Options

Stories from other sources
Stories from Reuters, the New York Times, and some additional sources are featured on CNET News.com for a limited amount of time. If you have encountered this File Not Found error message from accessing one of these sources, it is likely that the story is no longer available through CNET News.com.

For Reuters stories, visit BizTech Library.
For New York Times stories, visit their site.
News.com site map

Can't find what you're looking for? Tell us, so we can improve this site map. For a full CNET.com site map, click here.

WORKING link:

InformationWeek | Software Piracy | Trio Charged With Modifying Xboxes To Pirate Video Games | December 19, 2005

I think the problem with this situation is...

[FauxReal]

The DMCA is being legitimatized by mentioning it next to the real crime... which is:

"During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox..."

see: Pandora's Cube

[jacksplat]

just to point out another incident

also, these news headings are very misleading because it is not the chipping that is putting these people in jail, it is the sale of stolen video games, basically (as many other people have pointed out).

Why conspiring?

[hurfy]

"conspiring to traffic in a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system and conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement"

Is this one of those cases where conspiring to do something is as bad or worse than doing it?

If they can prove conspirasy in this case it certainly seems they could prove the act itself. Taking the money and handing over a disk with 77 games on it sounds a little past conspiring.

Re:Why conspiring?

[ClickOnThis]

I'm not sure of the legal definition of "conspire" that is at use here, but the relevant dictionary definition is to plot, devise, or associate for an unlawful purpose. I think it qualifies as a "conspiracy" because more than one person was involved, and they combined their skills to perform an act that was illegal in the eyes of the DMCA and copyright law.

IANAL, but perhaps the best way for the prosecuters to cast the net over all of them at once was to use the "conspiracy" argument. Maybe a bit like (1) person A has ingredient X that is legal to possess; (2) person B has ingredient Y that is also legal to possess; and (3) persons A and B meet together, allegedly to combine X and Y together into a bomb or other unpleasant device.

Unfortunately

[snuf23]

Including the words:

"mod you (down)..."

in any slashdot post - is likely to get you... well modded down.

Re:Unfortunately

[Loconut1389]

did everyone miss the joke?

"In soviet russia, XBoxes mod you" + "In soviet russia, Xboxes mod you down" = In soviet russia, Xboxes mod you (down)

+1 Funny and +1 Funny should be +2 Uber Funny =P

Oh well, my family thinks I'm hillarious, they laugh at me all the time! (again, joke...)

Re:Unfortunately

[snuf23]

Oh no, I got the joke and found it amusing. There just seems to be a contigent of slash dotters that finds modding posts with the words "mod down" in them to be funny.
(waits to be modded down)

+77 Pirated Games

[Cervantes]

This is sad. I didn't RTFA. I didn't even really read the /. article blurbage.

All I had to see was "Xbox Modders Charged Under DMCA", and I KNEW that they'd loaded pirated games on a HD, and THAT was mostly what they were getting busted for.

That is both a sad comment on the community of profiteering xbox modders, and a sad commentary on the state of /. article summaries.

how come no one

[geekoid]

has mentioned the games were priated?

Ugh! Terrible headline!

[ShyGuy91284]

A said it on an xbox forum when I heard about it (in a slashdotesque bitching style), and I'll say it here. I hate it when a headline is missworded purposely to get more attention.... They were not arrested for modding. They were arrested for loading 77 games onto the modded X-Box..... Arrested for modding would be surprising and interesting. Arrested for selling pirated games isn't. It's common sense.

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[EMB Numbers]

According to the Categorical Imperative of moral philosophy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperativ e, there is a MORAL harm regardless of any legal harm. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." In other words, pirate software only if you wish that everyone pirates software...or, if it wouldn't be good for everyone to do then it isn't good for you to do it...

Immanuel Kant would tell you that if everyone pirates software, there will be little new software produced and that is not desirable. Because it is not desirable for everyone to pirate, it is not moral for you to pirate.

At least according to one well known moral philosopher, there is a basis in common ethics and Christian teachings in this case.

Not So Different

[Slant675]

"DMCA" is just one letter away (and only moving that letter up one position in the alphabet at that!) from being "ACME" spelled backwards. There's gotta be a large conspiracy here somewhere! :p

which one?

[xmodem_and_rommon]

i'm curious to know which game would you consider worthwhile?

"sending a message"

[MegaFur]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for these guys because obviously they were doing more than modding consoles. But is a 5 year prison sentence appropriate for this? I'm not sure how prison sentences work in California, but in Canada a 5 year sentence doesn't neccesarily mean you spend 5 years behind bars.

Well, ya see, it's quite simple. The I.S. government is sending a message, and the message is pretty clear. If you're the President of the country, then you can pretty much do anything you want--spy on whomever you like, it's no big deal. But, on the other hand, if you're gonna aid video game piracy and most especially if you attempt to make money off of such an endeavour, then that means you must be a terrorist (because you impinged on corporate profits) so... yer goin' down. Five years in prison is a small price to pay to uphold the sanctity of the Incorporated States of America, yeah buddy.

MOD EVERY SIBLING REDUNDANT

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, 77 pirated games, we get it.

Ikaruga

[Zaplocked]

Ikaruga was a Dreamcast game prior to its GCN release.

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[Musteval]

Someone just finished Philosophy 101 and wants to look smart.

Here's a hint. Kant and real life are completely different things. And not everybody is a Kantian.

This is the SECOND time Zonk has done this!!

[chiok]

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/04/ 2150254&tid=222&tid=10

That article was later edited to add the fact that 80 games were added to the modding.

Once can be taken as an honest mistake, but twice is intentional. Stop it Zonk. Just stop it.

Re:This is the SECOND time Zonk has done this!!

[Anonymous Coward]

give 'im a third chance '-)

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is Enemy Action Mr Bond" - Auric Goldfinger

Redudant comments

[Anonymous Coward]

God there are a lot of redudant comments in this discussion. Even more than usual.

Deserving to go to jail? -- a tinfoil hat moment

[thegnu]

I think if I went to jail for an hour for everything illegal I've ever done, I'd be in jail for my entire life. I do think that they should have chosen something more lucrative and less destructive as a criminal pursuit, such as manufacturing crystal meth, or selling crack to children, or mugging, or murder.

But on going to prison, the Corrections Corporation of America is one huge f0ing corporation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporati on_of_America, and putting people in boxes for theft of intellectual property is good business. Putting people in boxes for doing drugs that aren't government approved is good business. Putting people in boxes for not being good at managing government approved currency is good business. Good business all around, this putting people in boxes.

I think if people knew what it was like in real prison, they wouldn't be so quick to send people there.

If they got busted for selling just the mod chip

[MsGeek]

...I would be angry now. I was angry until I got the facts about this case. These numb-nuts at ACME Games played themselves by installing the 77 "borrowed" games.

If this was simply a case of "here's the mod chip, go have fun" and Microsoft threw a fit, I would be supportive. But as far as giving people "borrowed" games they have no rights to, that's beyond the pale. This is a case of Warez pure and simple.

I have no sympathy. They were trading in Warez, and what's more they were doing it openly. That's not only wrong, it's *dumb.*

Re: XBMC

[Cryptnotic]

Not to mention that maybe 90% of the XBMC users are using it to play pirated movies/videos/tv/porn.

they still make old Xbox games?

[digitallysick]

with the 360 out, i figured they would stop making them soon. Once they do, will it be legal then to mod an xbox and copy the games?

I disagree

[Simonetta]

Yeah, they were just selling an xbox package of over 3000 dollars worth of games for 500 dollars...

    Actually the value of the games that they were selling was far less than $3000. Items are worth what people will pay for them; no more, no less. The value of the included games was the cost of the entire package, minus the cost of the hardware sold, the cost of the labor involved, and the cost of the time for the people putting the collection of games together.

    Were the game store owners 'stealing' from the game developers. No. No Way. The game developers should have made arrangements with the game sellers to have some form of compensation that would be a small percentage of the price that the game store received for selling the games.

    Instead the game developers made a deal with the game distributors instead. Easier for them. But they lost out from all the residual revenue that they would have received when the games were repackaged for easy sale (when they were copied onto the hard disk with hundreds of other games).

    A game that retails for $69.95 is only worth that price for a very short time and under very specific circumstances. Outside those circumstances (like its being brand new and/or state-of-the-art in its play), a game is worth far less than the price that game distributors believe that it should be selling for.

    All this nonsense about 'piracy' of so-called 'intellectual property' is nothing more than the breakdown of the marketplace to bring sellers and buyers together to exchange goods for mutual benefit at a price that each party agrees on. If $500 - $700 for an XBOX with a mod chip and a 'stash' of games is the price that many buyers are willing to pay, then that's the price that's fair and reasonable. The game developers and distribution companies are just going to have to get used to working in the actual marketplace.

    These stupid laws about copyright, DMCA, and 'intellectual property' are destroying the market for the product and they aren't doing anyone any good in the long run. If the developers think that they should get more money for writing software that they receive from the sale of a hard disk with their code and hundreds of other game developer's code, then get the fuck out of the game development business!. Write code for someone who will pay your more for your services.

    Jeez, this isn't all that hard to figure out. Please don't raise moral, ethical, and legal arguments over what is just a pricing issue between people who never learned to haggle in a free marketplace.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PLEASE NEVER EVER PROCREATE....EVER!

YOU SIR ARE A FUCKWAD

I'M GOING TO OFFER YOU $5 TO REAM YOU IN THE ASS WITH A PINEAPPLE AND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT OR I'M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAYS!

Re:I disagree

[rimclean]

I hope that was sarcasm, I have a feeling it wasn't though.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

        All this nonsense about 'piracy' of so-called 'intellectual property' is nothing more than the breakdown of the marketplace to bring sellers and buyers together to exchange goods for mutual benefit at a price that each party agrees on. If $500 - $700 for an XBOX with a mod chip and a 'stash' of games is the price that many buyers are willing to pay, then that's the price that's fair and reasonable. The game developers and distribution companies are just going to have to get used to working in the actual marketplace.


Such horseshit.

The package was not worth $500 because they sold it for $500. If I sell you a stolen Rolex for $50 because its stolen, no court is going to agree the watch was only worth $50.

Re:I disagree

[GaryPatterson]

Your post is... interesting.

If I want to buy something from you (such as your house and everything you own) I'll start at asking for it for free. You'll no doubt put a higher price on it, and we go from there. My preferred price doesn't seem to be fair, and probably your starting point won't be either.

If I say that I'll never pay more than $10 for everything you have, that doesn't make $10 a fair price.

Your point about game developers not having some sort of agreement with retailers is just utter garbage. Do you believe retailers sell games as a community service? They get a slice of the money, usually around 20% for new games I believe. That the retailer in this article pirated the games instead of trying for a profit shows that they're not only greedy, but stupid too.

You then go on to rant about game developers who should get out of the industry if they don't think rampant piracy is fair. That's... a novel point. I can't manage to twist my mind around it and still see how you could make that in any serious manner.

You don't understand game development, you don't understand business and you don't understand basic capitalism.

Well done!

Now please send me everything you own, and I promise to send you the fair and reasonable price of $10. And don't give me any of that moral, ethical or legal crap either!

The games aren't even that great...

[Thaelon]

What pisses me off is you CANNOT get an xbox now that doesn't include the Forza racing game. I just want to softmod it and use it as an entertainment center. XBMC is awesome. I have little to no desire to play games on it.

I have about 6GB of music that I bought (I'm very picky about my encoding.) And about 1-2GB of audiobooks from http://www.audible.com/, not to mention movies *coughporncough*.

But think about it - not that much thought is required - A $29.99 game "included" with the xbox for $30 MORE than an xbox with no game.

That's right!

A $149.99 game system + $29.99 game being sold for $179.99.

You're just FORCED to buy a game at full price with the system whether you want it or not.

I asked the local Game Rush/Blockbuster how much they'd give in trade for the game, because I was planning on trading it in before I left the store with my new xbox.

Try looking for Forza on ebay. There are like 100 copies. Nobody wants the fucking thing, but we're forced to buy it at full price if we want a new xbox.

What the fuck?

Re:The games aren't even that great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wellcome to capitalism. If you don't like the product, don't buy it!

It's criminal!

[paulproteus]

It's criminal that customers were charged so much for this!

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the golden rule is as simple as its going to get.

I'd much prefer someone start getting into a serious debate, as opposed to your pseudointellectualistic dumbassery.

but......

[dartarrow]

these things are rampant in south east asia. Modding goes for bout RM50- RM100 thats U$14 to 27 or so. And pirated disks are about USD3. And with xbox priced lower than actual cost its no surprise that PS2 is more popular that Xbox.

Oops.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being far too subtle in your sarcasm for the moderators. Maybe work towards comments that Saturday Night Live fans would think profound.

Wow...

[aywwts4]

Yeah, its a great world where free market means "We would like to sell you this for fifty dollars" and we can reply "How about... free?" They then reply "No" and we then proceed to give them our free and take the product because... Its a free market and for some odd reason we don't value someone else's work as much as they value their own.

If you think someone is not worth the price, You don't buy it and shop for the competition, (competition not defined as people who "liberated" some more of the expensive products from their true owners) If its a good price, you take two. Simply saying it's too expensive is not a ticket to ride, Non-tangible goods or not.

"if the developers think that they should get more money for writing software that they receive from the sale of a hard disk with their code and hundreds of other game developer's code, then get the fuck out of the game development business!. Write code for someone who will pay your more for your services."

What do you mean, are you saying that, if the developers think they should get paid more than zero dollars, (silly rabbit) from some people who copied their creation without their permission they should... stop making games, and start programing something else you would probably advocate the mandatory free price tag for as well?

Since we are on slashdot, we need poor analogies to demonstrate my point as if you were a five year old. But with your... shall we say interesting world view, I'm going to say thats not a terribly bad place to start.

We are going to go on vacation. (Yay!) First we need a rental car, we want the Mustang, sadly we can afford the cavalier, so we haggle, which is to say, we pay them for the cavalier, then hot wire the Mustang (don't worry, we will return it, so really, its a non-tangible good, the "rental")

So finally we get to Florida in our 'loaned' car...

Your standing in line at Disney world, You come up to the front gates, and They expect 80 dollars from you for a day in the park (The nerve) you refuse, in a real market, you would go to six flags which is cheaper just with less rides. But in your wonderland... You find a guy out back who says he can let you into the park for the cost of opening the door to a service entrance. (because really, thats a free market, and we just haggled with Disney)

Where the hell did you get the notion that "haggling" means, whatever the buyer says = "that's the price that's fair and reasonable. " and that, all software should be sold for the price of some loser putting it on a hard drive.

"The game developers and distribution companies are just going to have to get used to working in the actual marketplace." What the hell does this even Mean?! What "Actual Marketplace" is this?! Some prince of thieves Walmart where all customers walk up to the front counter with a knife, name their price, then grit their teeth, tighten their grip on their saber, and then repeat their process in a more menacing tone?

It really, really hard to imagine viewing the world though as distorted and ridiculous scope as your own I'm not sure if you just some "free software (no, thats not a suggestion)" nut or if you really think that if someone can take it for free, that means thats now the price as if the people who create it don't own anything other than the physical DVD these games come on.

In conclusion, Get a clue, and uh.. Guess I will be seeing you in the paper for "haggling" one day.

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

What would he have to say about everyone acting as a typical game publisher?

In the game industry it is often the case that product is forced to be shipped before it is complete and fully functional, employees are worked beyond normal limits (and sometimes legal ones), the products refuse to work for arbitrary reasons under arbitrary circumstances (copy protection), and a vast array of rights are stripped from the recipient of the product upon purchase (EULA), do game publishers have a leg to stand on when they assert moral superiority over people who take from them (pirates) when they make a habit of taking from people (paying customers)?

Prisoner's Dilemma has much more relevance to legal and business relationships than any Christian philosophy. It's fine for them to take from you but if you're taking from each other there's a problem. Two wrongs don't make a right means you lose your shirt with these folks even if you keep your morals.

Although I still say the thing to do is don't buy and don't take. Buy games from independent developers.

Blah blah blah...

[Corngood]

Whether you like it or not, there's a huge information based economy, it's not going anywhere, and it will be protected.

It doesn't matter how you deside to value information, because in the real world those 77 games are worth on the the order of thousands of dollars, and that's for one transaction. The scale of these guys' crimes is pretty large, and they should be punished accordingly.

The title reminds me of a song...

[cciRRus]

Xbox modders charged under D-M-C-A
Xbox modders charged under D-M-C-A...

Re:Ugh! Terrible headline!

[fishbowl]

"Arrested for modding would be surprising and interesting. Arrested for selling pirated games isn't."

I'd mod you up if I could. Anyone who is doing the mod should be meticulously compliant with regards to media. This case is an outrageous abuse of copyright, and it will only serve to cast the legitimate modding scene in an even worse light.

Hogwash

[PenchantToLurk]

If they wanted a DMCA rap for selling mod chips, there were plenty of opportunities. What they have is a copyright infringement case. The only point of choosing this case to prosecute them under the DMCA is for one (or more) of these reasons: 1) To hit them with extra charges that can be dropped in the plea deal. Look for guilty or no contest, unless the EFF gets involved, which they'd be a bit silly to, because of the egregiousness of bundling the 77 titles. 2) To guilt-by-associate the mod scene with these infringers' prosecution. 3) To have case law that can be misquoted in the future as implying that selling/installing mod chips is a violation of the DMCA or copyright law.

That's exactly the problem.

[raehl]

These guys are guilty of copyright infringement, so charge them with copyright infringement. That's the crime they committed. There's no reason for "circumventing copy protection" to be a crime - unless you want to prosecute people MERELY for circumventing copy protection, even if they are NOT committing copyright infringement in the process. If you believe committing copyright infringement by circumventing copy protection is somehow worse than just committing copyright infringement, then the law should make circumventing copy protection in the process of committing copyright infringement illegal.

But it doesn't. It makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection even if the copying would otherwise be illegal. Thus, the DMCA effecively allows content owners to EXTEND their copyright protection by adding copy protection.

If it's legal for me to copy something, it should be legal whether the something has copy protection or not.

This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[raehl]

The problem is, if you don't send people to jail, how do you prevent people who have nothing to lose from committing crimes?

If I'm an intelligent person, and I can potentially make tens of thousands of dollars by committing a crime, and the penalty for committing the crime is potentially losing the 10's of thousands of dollars and doing some community service....

Time to begin my criminal career!

But if the crime is going to prison, committing the crime is probably no longer attractive.

Penalties for crime can't just be restitution - if there's no chance you'll be worse off if you commit the crime and a chance you'll be better off, everyone (not indoctrinated with social constraints like morals or fear of god) becomes a criminal.

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in many other countries the problem is solved by making the community service
unpleasant enough. And by having the fines adjusted by income.

For example where in Finland where I live you really have to do something major or violent
crimes to get to jail. For others fines up to 100 000EUR work as nice deterrent.

We actually have the world record on traffic fines, I think the record is around 200 000EUR.
But then again we don't have problem is rich bastards breaking "minor" laws and getting away
for basically nothing for them.

The lesson, if the crime is profit motivated, have punishments that fit to them.

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[Jesus_666]

Firstly, I have to agree with the sibling - income-adjusted fees make for a great deterrent. If there's no upper limit they might even stop corporations in their tracks (for example, if $CRIME is fined with 10% of the annual income it would seriouly hurt anyone from Joe Sixpack to Microsoft).

Secondly, most jurisdictions actually keep track of your criminal record and apply harsher penalties if you get caught more than once (with certain states' "three times and you're dead" policy being the absurd extreme), so it's not quite a good idea to continue if you get caught. Probation is also a great way to keep the jails empty while deterring people (after all you can get thrown in jail for stuff that normally wouldn't even get you community service and you have less of a private life because of the probation's conditions).

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[LordFnord]

Firstly, I have to agree with the sibling - income-adjusted fees make for a great deterrent. If there's no upper limit they might even stop corporations in their tracks (for example, if $CRIME is fined with 10% of the annual income it would seriouly hurt anyone from Joe Sixpack to Microsoft).

Steve Jobs' annual salary is $1, so if he decides not to cash in any share options during the relevant twelve months, you can only fine him 10 cents for $CRIME.

Means-testing only works on people with bad accountants.

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[slomr2]

That might matter if he wasn't making tons of cash from his other jobs and investments.

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[cbreaker]

I agree that the punishment needs to be enough of a deterrent to dissuade any would-be lawbreakers, but I also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. I don't believe prison is the answer for many crimes. There's other forms of punishment - it doesn't always have to be prison time. People can screw up, and I don't think they should pay for it in years of jail time and a thoroughly ruined life (for a time anyways.)

Of course, I'm still talking about non-violent crimes here.

It's the repeat offenders that need more serious punishments, but even then I just can't justify sending people away is always the right move for many non-violent offenders. However, I guess in some cases it might be what's needed to "correct" someone. I just don't think we should be handing out years in jail to people as easily as giving out candy to school kids. It shouldn't be taken so lightly.

The fact is, tougher sentences have had very marginal impact on crime rates when applied. What criminal plans on getting caught? If someone breaking the law even seriously considered how much of a pain in the ass all the legal would be, it would probably be enough. But they don't. Murder rates in states with the death penalty doesn't decline, DUI doesn't decline with harsher penalties, and even the 3rd strike rule in California hasn't made any big impact on the number of robberies.

I don't necessarily agree that without strict laws, crime would run rampant. I'm not saying that crime shouldn't be taken seriously, of course, nor that we don't need laws. What I'm against is the trend toward unnecessarily harsh punishments. I guess the issue is what the definition of that is- and for many violent crimes I don't feel as though the punishment is harsh enough. 5 years for a woman that kills her baby in a fit of rage? And 5 years for a guy that sells modded xboxes with some pirated games? Something doesn't seem right there.

Re:This sounds right, but it doesn't work.

[LordFnord]

OK, Steve Jobs might not be the best example :-)

Here's another one, though: I'm self-employed, doing IT support. I can drop a few grand on a brand new shiny dual-Athlon PC with SLI graphics and all the trimmings complete with a 25" monitor, get a T3 line installed, and class the whole lot as a business expense. My income is £0, but there's a £3,000 PC on my desk and my ping times are looking fantastic.

"10% of my income? Sorry, I'm broke. I'm forced to spend all my time playing computer games because I can't afford to do anything else."

Re:Wow... (MOD PARENT UP)

[ic3p1ck]

Where's my dam mod points when I need them. This post should be insightful not the parent!

'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[adisakp]

Were the game store owners 'stealing' from the game developers. No. No Way. The game developers should have made arrangements with the game sellers to have some form of compensation that would be a small percentage of the price that the game store received for selling the games.

As a game developer, I can honestly say you know absolutely nothing about the games industry from that statement alone.

Yes they were stealing from us developers. They took away sales that could have made hard earned money for dozens of team members who work 70 hour or longer weeks during months of crunch time. Under the current system with stores taking a cut, console manufacturers taking a cut, and costs for marketing and development, most (but not all) high quality titles have to sell close to 1 million units at $50 merely to break even.

Please don't raise moral, ethical, and legal arguments over what is just a pricing issue between people who never learned to haggle in a free marketplace.

Without moral, ethical, or legal boundaries, this world would be a pretty sad place. However, you're still wrong on the free marketplace argument.

There's no way you're going to get console games of any quality for 77 games at $265 in any sort of 'free market'. That's just over $3 each and is less than the media manufacturing and distribution costs alone.

Re:'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agreed with you right up to the last sentence:

That's just over $3 each and is less than the media manufacturing and distribution costs alone.

Obviously someone dumb enough to get caught figured out a way to reduce those particular costs (which they bore) to considerably less than that. I'm not saying that I think that your argument is in any way invalid except that you are obviously getting shafted by the packagers and distributors.

Re:'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[amorsen]

There's no way you're going to get console games of any quality for 77 games at $265 in any sort of 'free market'. That's just over $3 each and is less than the media manufacturing and distribution costs alone.

$265 obviously wasn't less than the media manufacturing and distribution costs for the game store owners...

Re:'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[adisakp]

The store owners didn't distribute the game media... i.e. Discs (CD or DVD's), manuals, colored packaging, etc. They merely copied the data onto a HD.

If they merely had to provide all the manuals, they wouldn't have been able to charge such a low price.

And it's always cheaper to sell something when you aren't paying for it. I'm sure car thieves in a chop shop can sell you replacement parts cheaper than the dealer can as well.

Re:'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[HTH NE1]

Yes they were stealing from us developers. They took away sales that could have made hard earned money for dozens of team members who work 70 hour or longer weeks during months of crunch time.

Then so do stores that sell used games. After it is sold once, you don't get any cut from any resales.

There's no way you're going to get console games of any quality for 77 games at $265 in any sort of 'free market'. That's just over $3 each and is less than the media manufacturing and distribution costs alone.

And you've already recouped those costs on the first sale of the item. If the vendor bought those games for $2 each from people selling them to the store, then that's $1 profit from each title. And they just might be a glut in their inventory they're getting rid of like so many E.T. cartridges in the desert. Such a bulk sale of hard-to-resell titles is very understandable.

It's just that the industry feels installing them on the hard drive to be making an illegal copy, regardless of any transfer or destruction of the original disks or whether the agents provided original disks to be installed as proof of ownership.

Re:'Insightful' poster is a complete idiot!

[adisakp]

Obviously someone dumb enough to get caught figured out a way to reduce those particular costs (which they bore) to considerably less than that. I'm not saying that I think that your argument is in any way invalid except that you are obviously getting shafted by the packagers and distributors.

They didn't pay for custom media, they didn't pay for packaging, they didn't pay for distribution, and they certainly didn't pay anything towards the actual development. Of course it's going to be cheaper that way.

There are fixed disc reproduction costs for XBOX and PS2 if you want to run on legitimate systems and these are controlled by MS and Sony. There are distribution costs with big companies like Walmart, EB, etc. And of course, developers won't work for free (unless you count all the unpaid overtime).

If people actually want high quality titles on consoles, someone has to pay for them. If no one is willing to pay that price, then we can have a world where the only games are a glut of crap and Tux Racer.

Harsh punishment for minor offence

[S3D]

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

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Categorical imperative is an interesting philosophy, but -- at least the way you describe it -- it has flaws. The obvious one to me is the fact that it would be disastrous if everyone in the universe suddenly travelled to any given restaurant restaurant at any given time. Does this mean that going restaurants causes moral harm?

The whole world laughs at you

[Anonymous Coward]

You are, without a doubt, the most hilariously wrong-headed Slashbot I have ever had the pleasure of reading. You're ability to rationalise (but not justify) you're ridiculous beliefs through absurd metaphors, straw men, non-sequiteurs and taking ideas to their extreme is sure to become legendary. I can't commend enough your ability to use your demonstrable intelligence to produce ideas of such staggering idiocy, narrow mindedness and disconnection with reality. Excellent work!

reality?

[checkup21]

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/

Modified firmware

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the main ways the chips have maintained legality is the inclusion of the cromwell bios(a linux loader). The cronwell bios can be replaced with a hacked version of the Microsoft bios(like the evox bios or xecuter bios), these bioses are not legal since they are break the copy protection. If they were selling the chips with the hacked bioses then the DMCA does apply.
At the time of wrighting this there is no way to play games or other Xbox SDK compliled materials with the legitimate cromwell bios.
This is a case of some people profiting off of the work of other(both game and hack developers).
While I don't like the DMCA, this case is not much diffrent to me than the people that sell pirated DVDs.

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that philosophy is just one persons idea about something. Just because it is written down doesn't make it true or correct.

Modding wasn't illegal...77 pirated games is

[arock99]

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....

You forgot...

[hoshino]

There are two Halo games.

Re: Immanuel Kant syas there is "moral wrong"

[jc42]

Immanuel Kant would tell you that if everyone pirates software, there will be little new software produced and that is not desirable. Because it is not desirable for everyone to pirate, it is not moral for you to pirate.

And, like all the others making such claims, he would be wrong.

Where do people get the idea that nobody would ever produce anything if they weren't paid? If that were true, we'd have no community orchestras or theater groups, there'd be no church choirs, no teenage kids would be forming garage bands, etc.

And there'd be no free/open-source software.

Granted, people like to make money from such efforts. But a lack of pay doesn't seem to stop people from producing.

When it comes to art, entertainment and software, one could well make the argument that we get higher quality when people aren't paid. You'd have little trouble finding examples to support such a thesis.

Other mods ok?

[saltydogdesign]

Does this mean I can get busted for putting big chrome exhaust pipes on my Honda Civic?

Re:Other mods ok?

[SomeOtherGuy]

" Does this mean I can get busted for putting big chrome exhaust pipes on my Honda Civic?"

Only if you steal the pipes without paying for them. If you put stolen pipes on a ride that you have paid for, then the law of man has been broken.

If you pay for the pipes, then only the law of good taste has been broken.

Re:Other mods ok?

[saltydogdesign]

Only if you steal the pipes without paying for them.

Sorry, but I have to know -- is there any way I could steal the pipes while paying for them?

the FSM understands

[MooseTick]

Yes it is true, these people are pirates. Don't forget though, they may have a higher purpose. The Flying Spaghetti Monsterism loves pirates and He may have led them down that path. If that is the case, can they really be blamed?

Let he who is innocent, boil the first noodle!

Alternative DMCA cases...

[enraged78]

The major problem that I have with this article and action in general is that they bothered to invoke the DMCA at all. If this were just a question about a company deploying an XBox with 77 games, that would be fine. But here we are talking about arresting someone for using a product that is designed to circumvent copy protection through reverse engineering.

With that out in the open, I have two other scenarios that would fall into this category. We all know that XBox's have very weak DVD-Rom drives, which have a tennancy of failing. These drives typically fail outside of warrantly, which causes Microsoft to deliver you a "too bad" when you try to have it replaced. Now, a company sees that there is a demand here, so they start repairing XBox's with upgraded DVD drives at a small cost. Seeing as how you need to "reverse engineer" the hardware to figure out how to install the drive, and that the drive itself is an integral part of the copy protection routine, you have effectively broken the law. You can now be tried by Microsoft. Not that you would, but the option is there. This is unjust.

Taking this theory a step further, we also know that the XBox power supply is a questionable product. If Microsoft deems that you are not to qualify for the recall, and you still have a defective product, you still may have a company offer a third party supply. Seeing as how you need a power supply to enable the copy protection to funtion, and you had to "reverse engineer" a replacement supply, are you not in violation of the DMCA?

This action was never a question of copywright. It is a question of invoking an injust law that fucks consumers for the benefit of big business.

Government no longer functions for the greater good, it functions for the greatest dollar.

Matt.

Ripped off

[Versalis]

$255 - $500 US? Man, you Yanks are getting burned! There are places up here in the Great White North that will mod your box for $50 plus the cost of the hard drive (Canadian dollars).

Not that I would do anything like that myself. Golly, that wouldn't be nice at all.