Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mod Chips Legal In the UK

Posted by timothy on from the mod-fish-still-under-scrutiny dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Good news out of the UK! Techdirt reports that an appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling and has now said that mod chips do not violate copyright laws. The case involved a mod chip seller, who imported mod chips for the XBox from Hong Kong and would sell the chips or mod the Xbox's himself. He was charged with copyright infringement and found guilty by a lower court. The appeals court has dismissed all charges, however."

169 comments

  1. This is ridiculous... by superash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After I buy something, it is _mine_ ! Case closed. I can do whatever I want to do with it. If I had stolen it then I am guilty. I don't see a case otherwise.

    1. Re:This is ridiculous... by dnwq · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ... Is there a swarm of bots replying to articles based on keywords or something? Dude, why the heck are you complaining?

    2. Re:This is ridiculous... by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless it's licensed, not sold :)

      Fortunately the 'first sale' principal has held up in most places where it has been tested, so your argument seems to hold true.

      But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic, saw of the barrel(s) to make it easier to conceal). Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect, and I think that is what was being tested here (although I think they were trying to make an existing law apply rather than testing a law brought in to address that problem specifically).

    3. Re:This is ridiculous... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it is licensed not sold it is subject to a different taxation regime.

      The vendors and especially the software ones cannot have it both ways. It is either a sale or a rent.

      It it is a sale it is subject to appropriate financial regime for sales (VAT, can be registered as a capital asset, depreciation, etc). Income from sales can be taxed in a different jurisdiction. Even if the sale has taken place in a "nasty taxation" place like UK, Scandinavia, New York, etc, all taxation can be done in a place with lax taxation like Ireland in the EU or Texas in the USA.

      If it is a rent it cannot be depreciated and cannot count for capex. It is opex, period. Similarly, income from rent in nearly all countries in the world must be taxed locally. The usual tax evasion practices of big software and hardware vendors are outright illegal and forbidden by law.

      So frankly, if it is licensed and the licensing contract is valid - come on, try to prove it. All the defendant needs to bring are the taxation statements of company X. If X wins it will lose its taxation regime.

      Lose-lose.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:This is ridiculous... by harry666t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if I modify my own brain to play illegal games without use of any external devices? Will I be a criminal charged for copyright infringement? Will I have my brain removed? How do they know what could be there in my brain?

    5. Re:This is ridiculous... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      After I buy something, it is _mine_ ! Case closed.
      Nope, I'm pretty certain you have to open it to put the new chip in.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:This is ridiculous... by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Funny

      They wouldnt know, but if you started cutting out pieces of your own brain and selling it at the street corner, its likely it would raise some eyebrows, and thats what this guy was doing, selling the mod chips.

    7. Re:This is ridiculous... by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      How can a game be illegal unless it infringes on the some copyright or patent, etc. for another game?

    8. Re:This is ridiculous... by Gastrobot · · Score: 1

      I am not a lawyer. Don't rely on this in court based on my say-so.

      Interesting, but I think that it is a purchase.

      You are purchasing the license, not the software itself. In most cases I'd say you're also purchasing the media that the software is on, but then there are those occasional EULAs that stipulate that the original material must be destroyed if the license is violated (if I'm recalling that correctly).

      Also, I would say that you'd have a hard time referring to anything as "renting" if you pay a one time fee for indefinite use of it.

      The phrasing of "licensed not sold" does leave some room for debate about what exactly the licensor intends, though.

    9. Re:This is ridiculous... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      You are allowed to modify it in any way you want. You are not allowed to possess an easily concealable weapon in that gauge nor a semi-automatic one.

      Law would have to be introduced that prohibits you from having the console mods required to play pirated console games.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    10. Re:This is ridiculous... by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole rent thing is just a bit of a bad idea in the case where you get a physical object that cannot be returned, and the leasing company does not ever want it back. If in fact you are leasing it, the repairs of such should be free of charge if they are not due to normal use, and you as a lease holder are due a proper and functioning unit while the lease is current.

      If the cost of an xbox is a lifetime lease, then the product should be accompanied by lifetime warranty, lifetime repair as well. When leasing a house or car, you are responsible for damage to the property, normally paid on termination of the lease. This process is not in use for the xbox, indicating that it is NOT a lease, but a sale. Where lifetime == term of the lease.

      I've not explained that correctly, but under the law MS has not acted like someone renting out games consoles. They behave like someone selling them. Until that changes, doctrine of first sale applies.

      The movie rental place by my house 'rents' games consoles, and they act like they are renting it. MS does not do that, and charges a different price as well. Intent has a lot to do with how many judicial processes look at things. Intent to murder and accident are two different things as an example.

      Just how I see it.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    11. Re:This is ridiculous... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1, Informative

      But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic,
      Actually, in the U.S., it is legal to upgrade a gun. Selling a certain semi-automatics and fully-automatics is illegal, but changing parts out to turn a gun into a semi or even a fully automatic is not illegal. In fact, gun manufacturers have even made a point of making such modifications easier.

      Also, the reason you saw off the barrels of a shotgun is not soley to make it easier to conceal -- it also causes the charges to spread more.

      Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect, and I think that is what was being tested here
      Under the DMCA in the U.S., it's illegal to modify an Xbox because it (potentially) bypasses DRM. I think what was being tested in the U.K. was a very similar law.

      --
      My blog
    12. Re:This is ridiculous... by montyzooooma · · Score: 1

      After I buy something, it is _mine_ ! Case closed. I can do whatever I want to do with it.
      I hope you don't buy a gun.
    13. Re:This is ridiculous... by sqldr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I once saw a conference with bill gates, where a child popped his hand up to ask a question. We never got to hear the question. He got as far as "my dad bought me a copy of windows". He interrupted to say "he didn't buy it, he /licensed/ it" before going off on a diatribe that instead of owning a tangible object (a CD with windows on it), you are licensing the 1s and 0s on it. He was about 12 years old. What a cunt.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    14. Re:This is ridiculous... by Spokehedz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod chips should not be illegal because of the 'might do' senario. A modchip can't play illegal games all by itself. It takes at least three steps in order to make it play stolen games:

      1. Download it
      2. Burn it
      3. Put it in the console

      Otherwise, it is just a chip with code on it. Nothing more. YOU have to make the decision to play a game that you do not legally own. Not the console or the modchip.

      To continue your gun example... I might go out and kill someone with my gun.

      Would making my gun fire faster want to make me kill more? No.

      Would making it easier to conceal make me want to kill more? No.

      Would it make it easier? Well, duh. That's not the issue. It was possible before I modded it to kill someone with my gun, and it is still possible after I mod it. All that is changed is how easy it was to kill someone with it.

      It was possible to play games I don't own before--all I had to do was steal them from the store. Pretty easy, with how lax stores are these days with camera security and such... But the fact of the matter is that I had to steal something somehow. Not the console, the chip, or anything else. Me.

      *** I used myself as an example, and I do not own any stolen games. Nor do I plan on owning any stolen games. And I don't plan on going out and killing anybody any time soon either. ****

    15. Re:This is ridiculous... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if the sale has taken place in a "nasty taxation" place like UK, Scandinavia, New York, etc, all taxation can be done in a place with lax taxation like Ireland in the EU or Texas in the USA.
      False. Ever hear of use tax? If you use the good in NY, and its a taxable good, be prepared to pay use tax is the sales tax paid on the purchase is less than the sales tax in NY.

      If it is a rent it cannot be depreciated and cannot count for capex. It is opex, period.
      You sound pretty confident for someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Capital leases are very common... that's when you have a lease (rental agreement) and you capitalize the asset. The stream of payments for the lease is amortized, and meanwhile you depreciate the asset and record your depreciation expense.

      The usual tax evasion practices of big software and hardware vendors are outright illegal and forbidden by law
      What are you talking about?

      I'd also add that licensing != leasing, I think you're confused on the topic.

      I guess, to sum up, I'd say that gettig accounting/finance advice on slashdot is like getting legal advice on slashdot. Some of it seems to make sense, but I'd rather have duct tape ripped from my scrotum than have to go before the courts or the IRS using advice from slashdot as my only source of information.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:This is ridiculous... by reddburn · · Score: 2, Funny

      The usual tax evasion practices of big software and hardware vendors are outright illegal and forbidden by law. At the same time? Is THAT legal?
      --
      "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
    17. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic, saw of the barrel(s) to make it easier to conceal). Ah, yes, but this is not due to *copyright law*. It's not the manufacturer telling you "I've got a copyright on my gun's design, therefore you can't modify the one you bought".
    18. Re:This is ridiculous... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Unless it's licensed, not sold :)
      "Licensed" is bullshit.

      If I leave the store after having exchanged my money for an object, which I carry away in a nice plastic bag, I bought it. "License" my ass.

      How badly are we consumers going to let corporations abuse us before we decide that they are not simply amoral entities for accumulating wealth, but rather bad actors who will gladly hurt us if it means a bump in their stock price?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:This is ridiculous... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Law would have to be introduced that prohibits you from having the console mods required to play pirated console games.
      Nobody seems to have heard you, brother.You may have to say it a little louder.

      Are we so desperately addicted to our little consumer fantasies that we'll allow absolutely any insult from the corporate/legal molochs?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So graphic, and yet so funny...

    21. Re:This is ridiculous... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The whole rent thing is just a bit of a bad idea in the case where you get a physical object that cannot be returned, and the leasing company does not ever want it back.
      Well, that depends. There can be some serious tax advantages to leasing instead of buying.

      This process is not in use for the xbox, indicating that it is NOT a lease, but a sale.
      You don't even need to go that far. Look at your receipt of purchase -- it is a sales receipt, not a lease agreement.

      As far as licensing goes, that's a different issue. One could, theoretically, sell the hardware but license the use of the software contained on it. That's the crux of the issue -- if the software (and firmware) is sold as a non-transferable license, does the doctrine of first sale apply? Can the software even be sold as a non-transferable license, when it is bundled with the hardware?

      In reality, leasing has little to do with licensing. One could, I guess, enter a lease agreement on a license... but that would be silly. I'm not sure why the OP in the thread brought up leasing at all.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    22. Re:This is ridiculous... by joss · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a cunt u r. He was talking about a personal experience. You can choose not to believe him but not all personal experiences are recorded and have a url [although a depressingly large proportion do thanks to fucking facebook etc]

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    23. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the gun range I work at, changing a gun from full auto to semi auto, is a downgrade. And yes, one would saw the barrel off a shotgun to hide it easier. Dont need a 28" barrel for a liquor store robbery.

    24. Re:This is ridiculous... by Taulin · · Score: 1
      The reason this is a copyright law is due to the chip modifying the hardware, and actually changing the unit. I don't think it really is about being able to play illegal games, which I also think should be a reason.

      A true case in point: a guy made a statue for a high school that was displayed out front. The school put clothes and stuff on it, and he said take them off. They wouldn't, the artists sued the school and won. Why? It modified his original design which he owns the copyright on.

      Same for the console. Microsoft owns the copyright to the design of the console. Modifying, and reselling is what copyrights are meant to protect.

    25. Re:This is ridiculous... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also, the reason you saw off the barrels of a shotgun is not soley to make it easier to conceal -- it also causes the charges to spread more
      That's why a sawn-off used to be so popular with professional armed robbers - they didn't generally want to kill people (in the UK) just to make a large frightening bang if necessary.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:This is ridiculous... by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Funny

      I once saw a conference with bill gates, where a child popped his hand up to ask a question. We never got to hear the question. He got as far as "my dad bought me a copy of windows". He interrupted to say "he didn't buy it, he /licensed/ it" before going off on a diatribe that instead of owning a tangible object (a CD with windows on it), you are licensing the 1s and 0s on it. He was about 12 years old. What a cunt.
      Hey, the child was only asking a question...
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be too snippy, but in the US, semi automatic weapons are perfectly legal. It's fully automatic ones that are heavily restricted.

    28. Re:This is ridiculous... by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

      if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic, saw of the barrel(s) to make it easier to conceal). Now it may be the action that is illegal, but in practice the problem is that you are creating an item which it is illegal to own. If it is illegal to own a modded console, then it may well be illegal to mod one as well.
    29. Re:This is ridiculous... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. If you buy a gun and modify it in a way you're still allowed to have that gun, you just can't use it anymore or brandish it in public (depending on your locality). You can still own it and store it in your gun cabinet since in the USA you're still allowed to own guns (it's in the constitution somewhere), usually the use, transportation and places of use is regulated by state or local laws (like you can't shoot within 300 ft of any houses or in the direction of animals or people).

      Your argument doesn't match the exact circumstances either. An XBox hardware isn't a weapon (the software running on it can be classified as a weapon in the US), it's just a piece of electronics like a TV or a VCR/DVD player.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:This is ridiculous... by sqldr · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not wikipedia mate. It was on an episode of Panorama about 8 years ago. Sorry if I can't give you more than that. You don't have to believe me, but you can find mountains of evidence of Bill's opinions over licensing/sale.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    31. Re:This is ridiculous... by PachmanP · · Score: 0, Troll

      ---Joke---->

      *woosh*

      -You-

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    32. Re:This is ridiculous... by omnipresentbob · · Score: 1

      Yea, but don't expect them to fix your XBox (for free) after you get a Red Ring of Doom.

    33. Re:This is ridiculous... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal"

      No you're not, but it's not because you don't own the gun. Rather it's because owning a modified gun is illegal.

      In other words, to get really nitpicky, it's not the modification of the gun that is illegal, it's the modified gun itself (and the parts in many areas). As long as I don't modify my gun in a way to make it illegal, I can keep on modding it all week (ever seen the picture of the sniper rifle with a cupholder on it?)

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    34. Re:This is ridiculous... by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 1

      Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect

      Fortunately that law doesn't exist! While I do have a modded XBox (original) it's only used for the excellent XBMC. Such a law wouldn't just 'hurt' pirates, it would also hurt actual legitimate enthusiasts (XBMC is coming out for Linux soon though soon, so it will be time to retire it! :)

      --
      Order free Playstation 3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Wii
      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    35. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Before being so quick and harsh in responding read it carefully.
      To me the poster is pretty correct with regard to the tax / VAT regime in the UK and how it applies in the EEC.

      We don't have 'use tax' - that's a yank thing.

    36. Re:This is ridiculous... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You're still responsible for VAT on items purchased elsewhere and imported -- even licenses. This is the equivalent of use tax.

      The distinction between licensing and leasing remains.

      Also capital leases exist in the UK as well as in the US.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    37. Re:This is ridiculous... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I once saw a conference with bill gates, where a child popped his hand up to ask a question. We never got to hear the question. He got as far as "my dad bought me a copy of windows". He interrupted to say "he didn't buy it, he /licensed/ it" before going off on a diatribe that instead of owning a tangible object (a CD with windows on it), you are licensing the 1s and 0s on it. He was about 12 years old. What a cunt. Hey, the child was only asking a question... 'Course, some people might assume that this referred to Bill Gates. However, I'd cut Gates some slack- it's mighty impressive that he was conducting press conferences when he was just 12 years old.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    38. Re:This is ridiculous... by Gingernads · · Score: 1

      This is a perfect opportunity for me to ask a question that has always confused me...

      If it is illegal to own a sawn-off shotgun, what about just owning the bit you saw off?

      What do you legal experts think?

      --
      Your optimism strikes me like junkmail addressed to the dead.
    39. Re:This is ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's good for dating advice.

    40. Re:This is ridiculous... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It can violate hatespeech laws or whathaveyou. Maybe it's a thinly veiled piece of Nazi propaganda (concentration camp simulator 2008?) or maybe it's just a horribly brutal game that makes unnecessary brutality a desirable thing? Maybe it's a DVD game consisting of child pornography?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:This is ridiculous... by Exlee · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Russian chicks who are sold for 1000$.

    42. Re:This is ridiculous... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Actually modding is legal in Brazil. This specific problem is already solved for me.

      BTW, piracy is also rampant, but, at least, police seems to go after the pirates.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    43. Re:This is ridiculous... by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      Unless it's licensed, not sold :) but a piece of hardware is not licensed, it is sold- I don't recall anywhere where when i have bought a console or handled it stated that I am "licensing" the hardware (which would be a lease not a purchase), only that the manufacturer takes no liability if the unit is opened or modified- truth is it doesn't matter if I put a mod chip in it or a toaster in it, I bought the hardware and so it is mine do do with what I please- apple tried to pull that crap on the old power PC's back in the day when the first imacs came out and I got a letter saying that they wanted to recall my homebuilt power pc (traced my registration of the motherboard) because it "violated their licensing" when they stopped granting the rights to build them. I wrote a letter back telling them to kindly fuck off and have never bought another apple product again to this day.

      Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect chipping a console is not modifying it to play illegal games- it is unlocking the console, period. I have modded DS's and PSP's- I use them for making loops (I am an electronic musician) and as cheap text readers as well as emulator consoles and a number of other things. Besides, the PSP actually works better once you flash it because it runs faster off the memory stick than the umd and you don't have to carry around umd's- does that mean I don't buy games? no, I rip them to the memory stick and play them that way.
    44. Re:This is ridiculous... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      but a piece of hardware is not licensed, it is sold

      I agree with you (you'll notice the emoticon next to my original comment), but do a search for the stuff Cisco tried to pull when their hardware was re-sold. Their line was that you were free to sell the hardware, but the IOS (Cisco OS) software stored on the flash chip was licensed and not sold so unless the purchaser re-licensed the software from Cisco, they were using it illegally. Their case is slightly different as, for security reasons, it pays to keep up to date with the IOS releases, but I still think they were just being greedy.
    45. Re:This is ridiculous... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Your argument doesn't match the exact circumstances either

      It doesn't, but I was responding to a comment that stated 'if I bought it then I can do anything I want to it'. I wasn't aware of the US gun laws, but certainly here in Australia we have very strict rules for anything with more power than a pea shooter. I think semi-automatic weapons are a big no-no, it's even illegal to have one in your possession.
    46. Re:This is ridiculous... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      And what about if the 12 inches of barrel just wore down through normal use?

    47. Re:This is ridiculous... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      No you're not, but it's not because you don't own the gun.

      I'm not sure that the legal system would differentiate much between 'own' and 'you have it in your possession and behave as if you owned it'.
    48. Re:This is ridiculous... by madclicker · · Score: 1

      This is retarded! First Device when modified becomes illegal as to cause severe harm. Second Device when purchased and modified provides a more complete entertainment system. How comparing the two is "Insightful" ?????

      --
      "History is the realm of the true lie." A.Szerb
    49. Re:This is ridiculous... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic...

      "semi automatic" actually isn't illegal. It's also mostly impossible to convert a non-semi-auto to semi-auto. Not entirely, but mostly. Perhaps you meant "fully automatic"? Semi-autos can be converted to full auto, though it's not so trivial as an amateur might think.

      Though I used to own a rifle that would go full-auto if I let too much gunk build up around the firing pin. Very annoying to have to clean the damn thing after every magazine I put through it....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't expect them to give up. Just like Bush was recently lost his third case in the US supreme court for the third time over Gitmo prisoners, they keep coming back and is considering new legislation to "solve" the problem.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by thermian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because the view (which is, to their mind, legitimate), is not that modding isn't illegal, its just that the law hasn't caught up with the requirements of modern technology.

      There are situations where this viewpoint is entirely valid, and some where it is not. Thats why we have the judiciary in the first place.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    2. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In general, I think they're far too trigger-happy on creating new laws because it happens to be an old crime using new technology. Like the law a little while back on "cyberbulling", isn't harassment already a crime? Fraud? Theft? Blackmail? If i blocked the door to your brick-and-mortar store, they'd certainly find a way to prosecute my "denial-of-service" attack. Yes, there are probably a few crimes that really are new, but most aren't. Sometimes they don't make sense like we go from big industrial pirate industry to smalltime individual pirates, then the penalites should go up, up and away. Cyber-something is most an excuse to push new laws going in the direction they want.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect a government campaign just as some movie companies started on DVD's again that using MOD chips funds terrorism.

    4. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by drsquare · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the best part is, under new legislation, mod-chip sellers can be held for 42 days without charge.

    5. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      What relevance does this have to modchips in the UK? Whatever Bush may be doing, I don't think he's fighting against modchips in British courts... I doubt he really has an opinion on modchips.

    6. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      The law doesn't need to do any catching up. They should go after the people who copy the games, the people who import the pirated games, not the mod chip makers (who do things like allow you to run homebrew software). If modchips were widespread, you would see a lot more of those nice homebrew titles.

      Oh... It's hard go go after the bad guys? They shoot back?! Too bad. Live with it.

      I bet nobody would seriously consider introducing new legislation just to make my job easier. Laws are not for that.

      --
      http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
    7. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 5, Funny

      I doubt he really has an opinion on modchips.
      I liek mudkips.

      Yours sincerently,

          GWB.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    8. Re:Expect anti-modchip legislation in 3, 2, 1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Bush troll post? Here's your free karma!

  3. Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by apathy+maybe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least, not by any sensible person's definition or understanding of the term "copyright". That is, there may be some legal jurisdictions where a piece of hardware can be considered a violation of copyright law, even if that hardware is not in and off itself a violation. (If you know what I mean.) However, in no sensible place could it be considered to break copyright, anymore then region free DVD players could be considered tools to break copyright.

    (I believe in Australia both are perfectly legal.)

    Of course, what the law says, and what a sensible person would expect the law to say are often two completely different things. Where the law is too complex for the average person to understand, then there is something wrong with it. (Resists temptation to explain why all laws are wrong, complex or not.)

    --
    I wank in the shower.
    1. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by kramulous · · Score: 1

      (I believe in Australia both are perfectly legal.)
      Just keeping my great, great grandparents proud. History is a bitch to live with, you know.
      --
      .
    2. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Aaron+Denney · · Score: 1

      (Resists temptation to explain why all laws are wrong, complex or not.)

      Unsuccessfully resists temptation, perhaps.
    3. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, what the law says, and what a sensible person would expect the law to say are often two completely different things.

      I understand why copyright infringement is illegal. What I don't understand is why facilitating copyright infringement is illegal. It's conceivable that somebody is coming to harm when copyright infringement occurs, but nobody necessarily comes to harm when facilitation occurs. If I'm not mistaken, mod chips potentially fall under the

      I say potentially because mod chips can be used to play import games, which is a legal activity (the fact that Sony somehow managed to shut down Lik-Sang notwithstanding). I've long held the (totally unsubstantiated) belief that games console manufacturers deliberately tie together their region encoding and copy protection functions, where disabling one disables both, so that they can cry copyright infringement whenever somebody mods their console for the purpose of playing imports.

    4. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Informative

      More over,
      DRM isn't copy protection, any one (with the tech) can copy/clone the disk physically and it will work just fine. It's playback protection.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by SkunkPussy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Where the law is too complex for the average person to understand, then there is something wrong with it."
      great point. I have been saying for some time, that as there are so many laws that its impossible for any individual to be aware of all legislation that pertains to them, how can it be possible for a well-meaning individual to obey said laws? Therefore how can this legislation be valid?

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    6. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's playback prevention.

      Nobody protects my playback. Actually, the opposite takes place.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by einzi · · Score: 1

      I believe that this technology by it self is not breaking copyright since it allows me to use backup copies, that is legal to do in Iceland and is even noted in copyright laws. Don't know how it is in the UK.

    8. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, what the law says, and what a sensible person would expect the law to say are often two completely different things. Where the law is too complex for the average person to understand, then there is something wrong with it.

      I think you're mixing two different things here:
      1. The person has never read the law, only guessing on what he expects.
      2. The person has read the law, but still don't get what it's saying.

      The first one usually happens because there's a lot more cases to cover than what can be briefly summarized. For example you'd naturally assume copyright has to do with copying, yet for example public display doesn't involve copying at all yet it's one of the exclusive rights. I think it's rather presumptious to think that a person should be able to think up everything by themselves. Or if you want an example that something is legal instead of what's expected many people think the exclusive right to copy is absolute and final, not thinking up any "fair use" unless it's pointed out to them.

      Neither of these are really a big problem with the law, it's rather that most people don't have time to be familiar with the entire body of law. Nor do you really have to be, I need to know stealing is illegal but not every detail about what's petty theft, armed theft, grand theft, robbery, armed robbery and so on. Nor to I need to know things like building codes unless I intend to build a building. The actual level of detail required to function like a normal citizen isn't that high.

      The other issue can be a big problem, but usually it happens because the law is trying to be very, very precise which makes it full of definitions, enumerations and whatnot that reference each other and are made up of very awkward English. And that's just when they don't use terms with a specific legal meaning, which happens in all professional fields. Often it ends up being close to what the public expects, but it's hard to understand. It leads to gems like this (from the defintion of "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works"):

      "Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

      Do you understand what it's trying to say? It's trying to deal with for example an engraved sword, and isn't unreasonable. I can understand people completely mind blanking when they hit a sentence like that though. Obtuse laws are actually a greater danger IMO than over-detailed laws. If a law leaves great room for interpretation, it will almost certainly be bent to be used in the most unreasonable ways. There's been quite a few examples of that pointed out there where "terrorism" laws are being used to deal with people that in no way are, or could even reasonably suspected to be terrorists.

      If the law was to be easy tor the average person to understand, I don't think it could deal with the corner cases. In a court case, people don't sit together and reasonably discuss what a natural interpretation of the law is, it's one party bent on conviction and one party bent on not getting convicted. It won't be an academic discussion, it'll be SCOs legal theories and they need to be refuted point by point using precise definitions, which are inherently hard to understand.

      I think the biggest issue is the distance between recognizing that a law is bad and being able to do something about it. Not many are going to flip-flop between democrats and republicans over single laws? In europe it's generally a litle better since you have more parties so with public pressure people move to "adjacent" parties, but then there's other concerns. For example, there have

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by EveLibertine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ignorantia legis non excusat

    10. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ignorantia legis non excusat Could you translate all statutes that apply in your jurisdiction into similar Latin by this time next year?
    11. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Devin+Jeanpierre · · Score: 1

      Nah, he unsuccessfully resisted the temptation to mention how he successfully resisted the temptation (aaah) to explain it in any detail, rather than just mention it without any explanation.

      --
      -Devin Jeanpierre
    12. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So kick her out.

      That is, after all, what most people choose to do.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand why copyright infringement is illegal. What I don't understand is why facilitating copyright infringement is illegal. Well, I assume it's the obvious:

      (1) We want to prevent copyright infringement (see why copyright infringement is illegal).
      (2) Banning possession of mod chips will help achieve (1) as pirated games cannot be played.
      (3) Banning sale of mod chips is easier than (2) as it is easier to prosecute ten distributors than a thousand consumers.
      (4) Politicians decide, rightly or wrongly, "allowing import games and backup copies" is wanted only by a small fraction of people.
      (5) Politicians judge that our collective desire from (1) to prevent copyright infringement, scaled by the effectiveness of (2) and (3), is greater than our desire from (4) for the non-piracy benefits of mod chips.

      There are other examples of laws like this; driving fast doesn't harm people, vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian collisions harm people. But we regulate vehicle speed to achieve the goal of regulating vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian collisions because vehicle speed is easier to regulate.
    14. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's more complicated than that. A device that only has the ability to infringe copyright is illegal under the copyright act in most countries. This tends to cover anything with a trivial exception that might otherwise be used to circumvent the law.

      Couldn't find details but presumably the lower court felt that ability to play imported discs, backups and homebrew software was a trivial exception, and the higher court disagreed.

    15. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      Perhaps it shouldn't be seen as a good excuse, but if there was a law that makes no sense and there was no possible reason that the perpetrator had heard of it, why shouldn't it be an offence? And what if the law is unclear? We're supposed to guess how a court will interpret it!

    16. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've long held the (totally unsubstantiated) belief that games console manufacturers deliberately tie together their region encoding and copy protection functions, where disabling one disables both, so that they can cry copyright infringement whenever somebody mods their console for the purpose of playing imports."

      If you can have one "feature" which can do the work of two, why face the expenditure of two? I think you're right, but I'm not sure nefarious purposes always stand up to price pressures.

    17. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

      and then recall those statutes

      --
      SURELY NOT!!!!!
    18. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Idaho · · Score: 1

      Of course just when I lose my mod points I see a worthwhile post....please mod parent up because (s)he's making a lot of sense :)

      --
      Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    19. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Fine,
      Please tell me where I can find a record of all the laws I need to follow. As far as I can tell, there is no actual law of the land - there's any number of laws unintelligibly recorded in a thousand conflicting laws hodgepode enacted over the course of centuries. And then there's just the statutes of civil law which even students of law cannot be aware of all of.
      If it's not possible for me be able to remove my ignorance of the law, then ignorance of the law is a valid excuse.

      Strangely of all the textbooks and lessons I had at school what the laws of this land actually are was never one of them. I can see no reason for this.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    20. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Ignorantia legis non excusat
      Definition of irony.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    21. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      esyay heay ouldcay, asay onglay igpay atinlay isay acceptableay.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    22. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's not exactly true. I'm not saying I agree with it, but they are making sure the disc you buy is an actual real disc, and not some knock-off that might have undesired consequences for your system and their support lines. So by having copy protection, they are (or claim to be) protecting the buyers of their games, and their copies of said games, specifically.

    23. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by WK2 · · Score: 1

      Wow, SkunkPusssy, that's exactly what I say. It's impossible for even a lawyer to know all of the laws. Even lawyers frequently have to look stuff up. "Ignorance is no excuse" my ass. Like most catchy sayings, it is complete bunk. How about, "If the law doesn't respect me, I don't respect the law." Making arbitrary rules for other people to follow, and punishing them for not following them, even when they never agreed to it or even knew about it in the first place, is wrong. This whole society thing is still in Beta even after tens of thousands of years.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    24. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, Sony already proved that I don't have to go to shady deals to buy discs that have undesired consequences for my system.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by ady1 · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that issuing tickets is a profitable business for govt so even if someone comes up with a way to increase the overall speed limits (or abandon them altogether) while still keeping the driving safe, govt wouldn't budge.

      Silly me

    26. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of option #1, we can rely on #1 when an illegal copy is made. We don't need to make any new laws about mod chips because the problem of copying games illegally is already covered by the law.

    27. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I understand why copyright infringement is illegal. What I don't understand is why facilitating copyright infringement is illegal. It's conceivable that somebody is coming to harm when copyright infringement occurs, but nobody necessarily comes to harm when facilitation occurs. If I'm not mistaken, mod chips potentially fall under the



      I say potentially because mod chips can be used to play import games, which is a legal activity (the fact that Sony somehow managed to shut down Lik-Sang notwithstanding). I've long held the (totally unsubstantiated) belief that games console manufacturers deliberately tie together their region encoding and copy protection functions, where disabling one disables both, so that they can cry copyright infringement whenever somebody mods their console for the purpose of playing imports.

      well selling a paper an pen allows people the 'ability' to copy copyrighted material. The larger issue is freedom of speach and the even larger issue is profit and loss; its nothing to do with copyright its all to do with the big companies protecting their bottom line.
    28. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      downforce elements, suction fans like on lotuses, you name it, of course if someone finds a way to eftiently avoid radar as well, that would be interesting

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    29. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Ignorantia legis non excusat

      True, but chances are your jury won't know how to speak Latin or know about the law either.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    30. Re:Of course they don't violate ... copyright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playback prevents your nobody? Are you in Soviet Russia or something?

  4. I seriously doubt by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that this will stop Microsoft from banning people from Xbox Live who have modded their systems.

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:I seriously doubt by saintm · · Score: 1

      Did anyone suggest it would?

    2. Re:I seriously doubt by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the risk of being accused of trolling Microsoft have the right to decide whatever rules they like about access to Xbox live.

      --
      init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    3. Re:I seriously doubt by thermian · · Score: 4, Informative

      At the risk of being accused of trolling Microsoft have the right to decide whatever rules they like about access to Xbox live.

      They own it and operate it, so yes I agree, they do.

      Whether such bannings would be considered fair by anyone else is beside the point, they can do what they want. We are not under any obligation to use Xbox live.

      Provided the modding crowd is sufficiently small, they can do it without even effecting the majority of the community.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    4. Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if their black, female or homosexual ofcourse.

    5. Re:I seriously doubt by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      To be fair to MS they have never, to my knowledge, banned anyone who runs a modded xbox OFFLINE but connects it online to xbox live only as a "pure" xbox.

      By this I refer to switchable mod chips. As long as you NEVER connected to live with it on they didn't ban you, even though it would have been simple to put a random check into every new game to send the "I hacked my box" packet next time they connect.

    6. Re:I seriously doubt by Saffaya · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have to keep up with times though, we are in the X360 era.
      If you want use your X360 for something else than M$ approved software, you cannot use Xbox Live.
      It is due to the regular and remote bios modifications done by Xbox live to your console so it is up to date for countering any software exploitation.

      The convenience of using XBMC or emulators, then switching off the modchip to play on xbox live are a thing of the past as far as the X360 is concerned. A real pity.

    7. Re:I seriously doubt by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Well, of course it won't. They said it's illegal, not that it's so incredibly legal that Microsoft have to bend over and take it up the arse from everyone who breaks their warranty by installing one.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    8. Re:I seriously doubt by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that I care. I didn't buy it for xbox live, I bought it for XBMC and emulators.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:I seriously doubt by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's . . . . great. They never banned consoles that they had no earthly way of knowing were modded at all.

      But yes, if you connected for a split second to Xbox Live with a modded console that was actually running a detectable mod chip, then goodbye forever. That said, I didn't really care (nor is my Xbox even banned, since I never connected to Live since I owned it). My main use for my Xbox mod chip was for XBMC.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:I seriously doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't keep up with the latest mod chip news but are you basically saying that the modchips got "defeated" by microsoft? Let's say I disconnect my 360 before putting a modchip (and let's assume the 360 has all the latest updates), then play some "import games" and when I end I just disconnect the modchip (pain in the ass but I can do it) and then pop in a genuine game and I wont be banned?

  5. MrModChips by niceone · · Score: 4, Informative

    I couldn't find anything on a news site I trust yet, but from the defendants front page it looks like they are happy! Not that I don't trust slashdot or anything, but a little confirmation is nice...

    --
    ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
    1. Re:MrModChips by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It's great to see that victory logo on MrModchip's front page, but what the heck is that timer countdown about? If I have my time zones right, it runs out at midnight their local time, a week from now.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:MrModChips by Xanius · · Score: 1

      My guess would be how long it will be until he's back up and running.
      Or possibly how long he expects it to take for another lawsuit to hit him over the same thing.

  6. Wider relevance by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this establish that the whole idea of it being a crime to provide a service that allows others to circumvent copyright is going to fall apart?

    i.e. will they still be shutting down sites like tv-links.co.uk which was only linking to copyright infringing material, not providing it?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Wider relevance by julesh · · Score: 1

      Does this establish that the whole idea of it being a crime to provide a service that allows others to circumvent copyright is going to fall apart?

      I doubt it. Unfortunately the case doesn't seem to have made it to BAILII, but I suspect the ruling was on the grounds that there are commercially relevant and legal purposes for a modchip (e.g. personal backups, grey imports, custom software) and therefore the relevant legislation does not apply in this case.

    2. Re:Wider relevance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i.e. will they still be shutting down sites like tv-links.co.uk which was only linking to copyright infringing material, not providing it?

      They do shut down sites like tv-links all the time. They cannot always find a solid legal reason to charge people with but sites like that do not seem to last too long.
  7. Chips Legal but... by Metorical · · Score: 1

    So modifying hardware that you own is legal.

    It is probably still illegal to modify it to do something illegal. I suspect if I modify my car to fire rockets that even though I may never do it I would probably fall foul of the police.

    I guess dual purpose (back-ups/pirate copies) gets around this though?

    1. Re:Chips Legal but... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, if the launch facility for rockets alone does not pose a significant threat to traffic or make your car a safety risk (e.g. in an accident), I could see it as perfectly legal. It's legal (in most states) to have a gun mount on the back of your pickup. At least as long as there is no .50 mounted on top of it.

      The interesting part is that there is no other place other than the internet where making a crime possible carries such insane punishments. We do a lot of things every day that could be constructed as "faciliating a crime".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Chips Legal but... by FinchWorld · · Score: 4, Informative

      Generally the modchip itself is not illegal (Well, me being in UK), but often to play copied games they use a modified version of the original bios/software/whatever which is the illegal part. As far as xbox modchips go I saw a general trend for them to be sold with the cromwell bios, which contained no proprietary code, and allowed various linux distributions to be used, but would not allow for the running of copied games (or even genuine if memory serves correctly). They also came with a simple way to reflash the chip and often instructions on how to obtain these other bioses from various sources.

      --
      "I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
    3. Re:Chips Legal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you about modding but do people really 'backup' games and dvds?? Whenever i read people talking about 'backup' i assume most people mean illegal copies...

    4. Re:Chips Legal but... by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just wait until you get a 3 year old stepping on your video game/dvd case then you'll see why you need 'backup' copies...

      Unless of course the companies are willing to furnish a brand new copy for a damaged or destroyed old copy rather than milk the customer for another $20 for a DVD or $60 for a game.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    5. Re:Chips Legal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until you get a 3 year old stepping on your video game/dvd case then you'll see why you need 'backup' copies...


      Or shelves.
    6. Re:Chips Legal but... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I suspect if I modify my car to fire rockets that even though I may never do it I would probably fall foul of the police. Depends. My (completely legal) SKS has a grenade launcher system though I'm 99% sure it's illegal to fire a grenade from it :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:Chips Legal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're part of the problem.

    8. Re:Chips Legal but... by masterzora · · Score: 1

      I don't know about backing up to a separate disc, but I definitely make an image of games I buy so I can run them without worrying about wearing out my disc.

      --
      Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
    9. Re:Chips Legal but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didnt stop eBay pulling them though :-(

      I had an idea for Xbox Linux, and was trying to sell the odd xbox with the cromwell bios flashed onto the onboard chip but done in such a way that it was NON-TRIVIAL to replace it with a copied MS bios. I stated in the auction that the whole thing would not play copied (hell, not even original) games any more and they still pulled it and refused to discuss why.

    10. Re:Chips Legal but... by the+brown+guy · · Score: 1

      My xbox 360 has fucked up 2 of my games, with deep, circular scratches on the discs. Apparently it is common, but fortunately those were games that I don't even play much, not worth the $160 to buy 2 new ones. If I could play backup copies, then I wouldn't care as much if my xbox wrecked discs, because I could just use backups (worth less than $1) made from the original.
      There are some legitimate uses...........

      --
      Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
  8. Max by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, if you look at it, the only thing modding does is well, modifying hardware you personally own which noone can say is wrong in any way. It is as if it was illegal to change the fuel-injection system in your car so it would be able to run on a different fuel (well maybe slightly illegal fuel). Now this case is not related to software copyright in any way and to sentence this man for copyright infraction (is it the right word?) is laughable.

    And i don't say this to upset anyone, it's my personal opinion.

  9. Of course, laws might change. by w4rl5ck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... or WILL, when it comes to all this "copyright stuff".

    The EU is just preparing more and more ridiculous legislation. Prepare for impact :(

  10. GNU/Linux on hardware *you* *bought*! by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's overboard to dissalow GNU/Linux to fully use the hardware you bought by default. Mod chips are here to insure proper balance. Actually, I think explicit locking of hardware with an OS is illegal in many countries. Maybe mod chips are part of their business model: they say mod chips are bad, but behind the scene if you look carefully, they actually sell them! Because at the end, that makes people spending more money on their hardware...

    1. Re:GNU/Linux on hardware *you* *bought*! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because at the end, that makes people spending more money on their hardware...

      that would be true is selling hardware gives profits.
      only nintendo sells the console with profit. Both Xbox360 and PS3 ara money sinks. The companies earn profits by selling games, what modchips prevent.

    2. Re:GNU/Linux on hardware *you* *bought*! by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 1

      If the XBOX is a money sink, The Great Evil would not be allowed to sell it. Indeed, most of the laws in main XBOX client countries forbids the practice of product dumping (or in only very specific cases). So the XBOX would be sold at its manufacturing cost price without margin. But since we are in the middle of globalization and there are many financial trickeries now possible... I would not bet on a fair respect of the laws. International finance gives international corporations the tools required to quite easily work around many finance regulation laws (... and to boost corruption). And you missed something: if those companies have a trick to make people spend more money on their hardware, then they will use it. They are not angels. If they make a loss on raw XBOX sales, the margin of mod chips, if from them, will reduce that loss. So making mod chips part of their business model is consistent in both cases.

  11. EULA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it some kind of EULA infringement rather than a copyright one ?

    1. Re:EULA ? by Devin+Jeanpierre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I've heard, EULA's aren't very proven in court (in the US specifically, but also elsewhere). While it may be more applicable, it could be very dangerous-- if EULAs were held to simply be invalid, then a lot more than mod chip litigation is screwed over. Copyright is more proven, and indeed, cases like this are more likely to be won, or can be lost without as much devastation (copyright in its entirety will not be thrown out over such a case). It actually was won, of course, so the logic for copyright did have some foundation (even if not as much as using the EULA and contract law)-- just not enough for the next-higher level.

      --
      -Devin Jeanpierre
    2. Re:EULA ? by Sique · · Score: 1

      EULAs are routinely invalid at least in German, because with buying something the only contract you have is the one with the seller. The EULA thus ist a contract with a party that was not part of the sale and thus not enforceable. The German term is "Erschoepfungsgrundsatz", and means about the same as the First Sale Doctrine.

      It is different if the EULA is already part of the AGB (Allgemeine Geschaeftsbedingungen, General Business Conditions) of the seller. But then the seller has to prove that the EULA was known at the time of the sale to be valid. It is different with downloads, because there you deal directly with the manufacturer of the software or hardware in question. Those EULAs might actually be valid contracts.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:EULA ? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Isn't it some kind of EULA infringement rather than a copyright one ?

      First of all, the guy was charged with a criminal offence. EULA violation isn't a criminal offence; only Microsoft have a claim against him for EULA violation, and from all appearances they haven't been involved in this case at all.

      Secondly, to get him for an EULA violation, they'd have to prove first that he'd agreed to the EULA. And seeing as he was modifying other people's Xboxen, it would be kind of tricky to show there was any reason why he would have done so.

  12. Ignorantia legis non excusat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you think about it, ignorance of the law _is_ a pretty good excuse.

  13. You still need a modchip to run homebrew by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect Does something like XBMC count as "illegal games"?
  14. Clearing misunderstood words by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nor to I need to know things like building codes unless I intend to build a building. If you own a home, you rebuild it continuously as you live in it.

    I can understand people completely mind blanking when they hit a sentence like that though. Mind blanking is one of the symptoms of a misunderstood word, illustrated in an episode of Muppet Babies that explored misunderstanding of "tuffet". If you're new to legalese, make sure to keep a good dictionary at your side so that you can clear these words. I still don't know why legal information web sites don't generally give readers more tools to clear words, such as a built-in dictionary. Is it because a complete Free dictionary doesn't exist yet?
    1. Re:Clearing misunderstood words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you seriously advocating a Scientology-based approach to legal study? ...on Slashdot?

    2. Re:Clearing misunderstood words by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful
      AC wrote:

      Are you seriously advocating a Scientology-based approach to legal study? ...on Slashdot? Every religion has good ideas and bad ideas. A stress on vocabulary building just happens to be one of Scientology's good ideas.
    3. Re:Clearing misunderstood words by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Every religion has good ideas and bad ideas. A stress on vocabulary building just happens to be one of Scientology's good ideas.
      Or rather, it's a good idea which Scientology has embraced, so you don't need to credit them with the concept of having as wide and accurate a vocabulary as possible.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Clearing misunderstood words by infinite9 · · Score: 1, Informative


      Every religion has good ideas and bad ideas. A stress on vocabulary building just happens to be one of Scientology's good ideas.

      Disclaimer: I am not a scientologist, but used to work in an office full of them, including the president of the company.

      In my experience, if scientology stresses vocabulary building, they definitely want it to be their vocabulary. Scientology literally redefines the meanings of a lot of words. I believe this to be a brainwashing technique. For example, if someone is being "reasonable", it means that they're making excuses.

      In general, I agree with your view. Nearly all religions have good and not so good ideas. But please stop including scientology in that group. Scientology (and their associated business "tech") is not a religion, it's a scam.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  15. Old saying still applies by Hells · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mod chips dont pirate games, people do.

  16. Don't worry, soon have that overturned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government here will simply say it's encouraging terrorism, with terrorists using hookey consoles to plan training sessions, have the chips banned! The wonderful state will make sure the nasty phantom, non-existent terrorists don't hurt us or invade our nightmares.

  17. HEY! by reddburn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unless it's licensed, not sold :) Don't copy that floppy.
    --
    "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  18. My anus by reddburn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    (_*_) a reward for your post, which is full of fail.

    --
    "Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
  19. It's a bit more complex than that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You wouldn't be modifying your car, you would be adding something that is possibly illegal. It would be the possession of the rocket launcher that is the problem, not the bolting of it to the car.

    Copyright is different. A photocopier, a camera, a computer and in fact a brain,hand and piece of paper are all that are needed to violate copyright. These are all long established to be legal pieces of equipment. The same applies to contract law. If it was illegal to possess a piece of equipment that facilitated allowing you to break a contract, we would have to get rid of our brains as well as our computers.

    You can get through your entire life without ever needing access to a rocket launcher or a gun, (My grandfather, a Methodist, was in a reserved occupation during WW1 and lived to 90 without ever so much as holding a shotgun), but it is now extremely difficult to get through life in a modern society without ever using a photocopier, camera, or a computer. Since a computer can be used to violate copyright or break a contract out of the box, it is hard to see how modifying it to change slightly the ways in which you could potentially do so would be illegal.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  20. Big Time Wrong by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sorry, but in the US, just having the PARTS to convert any firearm to a full-auto is a felony. It is most certainly NOT legal to do that one.

    There is a case winding through the courts where a man was convicted because his rifle apparently malfunctioned due to mechanical wear and went full-auto. He was convicted.

    1. Re:Big Time Wrong by knight24k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but in the US, just having the PARTS without a license to convert any firearm to a full-auto is a felony. It is most certainly NOT legal to do that one.
      There, fixed it for you. Possession is not illegal, possession without the proper license is. Possession of a FFL along with the proper license can legally possess both semi and fully automatic weapons and their parts. They can even possess and purchase suppressors if they so choose. These items are heavily regulated and monitored, but are not banned or illegal. As for your anecdotal case. Unless you know the specifics I would hazard a guess that either the jury didn't believe his story or the judge didn't or both. Just because he claims that it went full auto due to normal wear doesn't make it true.
    2. Re:Big Time Wrong by chriscrowley · · Score: 1

      More information about his case:
      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65455

    3. Re:Big Time Wrong by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Minor correction: an FFL is not needed to possess fully automatic weapons or a suppressor/silencer. It requires a Federal tax stamp and a more extensive background check. Beyond that anyone can own them (providing that local/state laws don't prevent it).

      HOWEVER, due to certain legislation, in most states you cannot own a fully automatic gun manufactured after 1986 regardless.

      Short barreled shotguns are also not really illegal. You have to get a tax stamp for these as well, and at that point a gunsmith can shorten the barrel down to whatever length you want. Not a whole lot of people really bother though (since you can legally go down to 18.5" without the paperwork anyways).

      Also little know fact that it is not illegal at all to construct your own firearms from scratch (and some talented machinists do this - they'll start with tube and bar stock and crank out a rifle). As long as the resulting weapon doesn't have any illegal features, and you don't intend to sell it to anyone else, you can make them perfectly legally. (I saw an article not long ago about a guy who machined a perfect copy of a Mauser rifle action out of bar stock in his garage).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:Big Time Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having illegal parts is a felony, yes. If all the parts are registered with the ATF no crime is commited. If a gun goes full auto due to mechanical wear on the sear, then no crime is committed. But the funny thing is, most guns dont just go full auto, they have been tampered with.

    5. Re:Big Time Wrong by chriscrowley · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying to myself, but it looks like there is a little more to the story. The first story left out some important information, but I did like that part at the end about the ATF agent involved leaving her handgun in the restroom within the secured section of the airport.

      More info:
      http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=750464

    6. Re:Big Time Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the government should make a new agency, the XPW. The agency of Xbox Plastation and Wii will issue tax stamps after filling out mass amounts of paper work and supplying a $500 tax stamp for your mod chip. After that, the Geek Squad from best buy can come to your house at anytime, steal your mountain dew and call you a nube for not upgrading the LED's in your game console.

      Or you could just buy one on the street corner.

  21. Don't abuse labels by ccguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who's the idiot that labels everything 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense'?

    Maybe it was funny a year ago (to him at least), but come on...stop abusing labels, they aren't that useful to begin with, don't make it even worse!

  22. A free country unlike the USA by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    when you buy something, you own it and can modify it or pay to have it modified. Unlike in the USA where if you buy something the company that made it owns it and takes away your freedom to modify it or have it modified.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  23. This may be good for Psystar Corporation with ther by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    This may be good for Psystar Corporation with there open mac as they are use a software like mod to make osx work on there systems.

  24. Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms.

    1. Re:Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Apostrophes are NOT used for possessive pronouns or for noun plurals, including acronyms.

      Not quite true. According to the Oxford Manual of Style (IIRC: i don't have my copy with me) an apostrophe may be used for a noun plural where the noun is either an acronym (particularly if it ends in "S", e.g. "SOS's") or a number (e.g. "80's"). I'm sure many other style guides include similar advice. See here for more info.

  25. mrmodchips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just a heads up, i've handled a lot of consoles and mr modchips can be flakey. i have recieved chips off him in the past fine but have used modchipstore since (in the UK) friends etc. using mr modchip have been reporting back terrible service, rip offs etc.

    joy of chipping? get a wii, the homebrew is spectacular already - the front sd loading etc. is beautiful.

  26. Thanks redburn1@gmail.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks redburn1@gmail.com

  27. Re:Don't abuse labels by qualidafial · · Score: 1

    How about "suddenoutbreakofpithytags" instead?

  28. Back in court next week... by igorthefiend · · Score: 1

    When the copyright holder finds that photograph and sues them for using it without permission... ;)

  29. pretty simple by slackoon · · Score: 1

    It seems pretty simple to me. I have a 3 year old at home that seems to find it funny to throw DVD's, CD's etc. For me, a mod chip is simply a way of safeguarding the original copies of the games for my Wii by only using copies of the games that I own. I am only copying games that I legitimately own and I have a good reason for doing it. Am I a criminal?? NO!!!

  30. Re:Don't abuse labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe because it gives people the ability to search for all stories that describe a "sudden outbreak of common sense", which, if I'm not mistaken, is THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TAG SYSTEM?

    You just sound like some cranky ass that doesn't like this "newfangled WEB 2 POINT ZERO TAG SYSTEM" and are complaining for the hell of it.

  31. Great Ruling! Lots Of Reasons To Use A Modchip.... by crowdofone · · Score: 1

    I have an old xbox with a broken hard drive that I brought - or is that 'licensed' secondhand ;) to use as a media player.

    Little did I know when I got it that Microsoft had decided to LOCK each xbox's harddrive to it's individual hardware and as a side effect the hard drive cannot be user replaced. The only way to replace a drive for old hardware like that is to use a modchip.

    Nice to know I'll be able to put it to good use again now rather than it being resigned to the dump.

    If there was no ability to mod our routers, wii remotes, pda's etc. when we'd fast turn into a 'black box' culture of throwaway crap, rather than having the opportunity to re-purpose it for a better afterlife.

  32. Re:Great Ruling! Lots Of Reasons To Use A Modchip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony did the same, but somehow it IS user replaceable, AND for a reasonable price!
    Basicly you just told us that they just want to make money, and they don't **** care how.

  33. Re:Don't abuse labels (Now Completely OT) by ahoehn · · Score: 1

    I donno, I appreciate humorous tags on slashdot far more than "useful" ones. They're akin to the commentary on Mystery Science Theater, when the article itself is boring, sometimes the tags add interest.

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  34. Re:Great Ruling! Lots Of Reasons To Use A Modchip. by crowdofone · · Score: 1

    Or want to prevent unauthorized use of the system and it's a side effect they are prepared to live with as it's only of concern to the customer and not the company.

  35. Mod chips kill by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

    The Atari ST line died a nice death due to the lack of software, which in turn was due to the lack of copy protection;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_ST#Software_2
    http://www.mevagissey.net/atariads.htm

    It is in the best interests of game consoles to protect their copy protection so that their content creators will continue to support the console. If they get scared off by a large mod chip community, they might quit making products for that console.

    So Microsoft, Sony, et al will fight this. As they should. Just because it is not illegal doesn't mean it is moral.

    Just because I buy an AK47, made for killing, doesn't mean I am justified to use it for it's intended purpose of killing. (Killing != illegal btw.) Buying a now legal mod'ed Xbox doesn't make it justified to play pirated (copied) discs/games.

  36. Whatchyou talkin' about Willis !?!? by hung_himself · · Score: 1

    Some of the nastiest copy protection was for software on the Atari ST - much worse than the 680xx machine that won the battle, the Mac.

    Great machine, excellent price, but except for music and maybe games, you are right that there was never enough software for it. But it had NOTHING to do with copy protection or the lack of it - just that there wasn't room for 3 680xx machines and the hardware/software geeks preferred Amigas and Macs...

  37. Re:Don't abuse labels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion