Slashdot Mirror


Xbox 360 Jailbreaker May Need Real Jailbreak

An anonymous reader writes "Back in July, the Librarian of Congress officially made it legal to jailbreak your iPhone (or any phone). So why is it that the government is trying to prosecute Matthew Crippen for jailbreaking Xbox 360s? If convicted, he could face up to three years in prison, and lawyers are trying to prevent the author of a book about jailbreaking the original Xbox from testifying in Crippen's defense. What kind of law says it's okay to jailbreak the phone in your pocket, but not your gaming console?"

52 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Apple xbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gah, Apple! Making all these locked down devices like the iphone and the xbox...

    1. Re:Apple xbox by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because somehow the "jailbreak" vernacular has replaced every instance of "hacking"

      It's a way to make it sound more evil. You could say it's "customizing". Or "personalizing", but the corporate masters have to make it sound really really bad.

      If this keeps on, by my calculations, doing what you want with a product you own will soon be known as "murder", or "terrorism" or maybe "baby-rape".

      I can see it now. "He is being prosecuted for baby-raping his Playstation 3".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Apple xbox by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You're not allowed to pirate or jailbreak!"

      I'm not. I am sampling the TV show to see if I like it (no) (it sucked worse than Star Wars Episode 1), and I am customizing my phone to my own preferences. I paid for it; it's mine to do whatever I please; including hitting it with a hammer, if that's what I desire.

      "Uhhh... no it isn't yours."

      Absurd. Of course the phone/box/whatever is mine.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Apple xbox by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Application" was in widespread use, and geeks (and their acquaintances) used "app" forever.

      See the bold part of your comment, which was exactly my point: it wasn't in widespread common usage. I now hear average, non-geeky folks referring to things like Photoshop or Firefox as an "app".

      I know that, technically, there's nothing wrong with this...it's just really annoying.

  2. What kind of law? by DeadPixels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What kind of law says it's okay to jailbreak the phone in your pocket, but not your gaming console?"

    The kind of law "sponsored" by Microsoft, Sony, and other industry lobbyists.

    1. Re:What kind of law? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The law they sponsored doesn't let you jailbreak the phone either.

      That's a specific exemption that is not part of law itself (well the existance of exemptions is, but not what those excemptions are).

    2. Re:What kind of law? by koreaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have to be given modpoints by the system before you can mod people up. The UI will make it fairly obvious that you are able to moderate if and when that happens.

    3. Re:What kind of law? by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or the law aided by lawyers with iPhones and who don't give a crap about the original Xbox

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:What kind of law? by Mista2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the land of the fee...., and the home of the laws bought by big media companies. Doesn't quite rhyme properly any more.

    5. Re:What kind of law? by Terrasque · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doesn't quite rhyme properly any more.

      The land of the fee and home of the slave?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    6. Re:What kind of law? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the tech community hadn't been asleep at the wheel when the WIPO Copyright Treaty was being negotiated, then we wouldn't be at this point. I remember going around to various usenet groups warning them about the provisions of this treaty and being laughed at for suggesting that it would ever be a criminal offense to mod your own hardware and crack programs.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:What kind of law? by multisync · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to be given modpoints by the system before you can mod people up. The UI will make it fairly obvious that you are able to moderate if and when that happens.

      And try not to be a dick about it, like the tool that moderated koreaman's comment Offtopic. It was, but it also provided helpful insight for new users like yourself. Leaving it scored at 1 and giving a positive moderation to a good comment instead would have served the discussion better.

      (You were also modded OT - probably by the same person - for a clearly ON topic comment, which should give you an idea of how useful the moderation system here is).

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    8. Re:What kind of law? by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think they care if you modify your XBox. They do care if you break DRM to pirate software. The specific question was why the XBox was not included in the 'jailbreak' exceptions stated by the Librarian of Congress, but smart phones were.

    9. Re:What kind of law? by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they didn't have that check, what is to stop you from just going and renting every game you want to play, put it on your hard drive, and return the disk. Repeat until you have gone through the 360 section of the nearby rental place.

    10. Re:What kind of law? by BigSes · · Score: 2, Funny

      The land of the fee and home of the slave?

      Actually, we prefer the term "Commercialized American".

  3. It's mine, I bought it, I can do what I want by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as I am not publishing their source code, or distributing their copyrighted binaries, then fuck'em.

    On the other hand, if I am publishing their source or binaries then I should expect a response, although jail time seems extreme to say the least.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  4. Different situation completely by cappp · · Score: 5, Informative
    The jailbreaking finding (pdf) was narrow, specifically noting that the

    critical question is whether jailbreaking an iPhone in order to add applications to the phone constitutes a noninfringing use...

    it appears fair to say that the purpose and character of the modification of the operating system is to engage in a private, noncommercial use intended to add functionality to a device owned by the person making the modification, albeit beyond what Apple has determined to be acceptable. The user is not engaging in any commercial exploitation of the firmware, at least not when the jailbreaking is done for the user’s own private use of the device

    The Library of Congress specifically made Iphone jailbreaking permissable, for the reasons given above. As with all things legal, a specific permission isn't just instanlty transformed into general allowance to do whatever the hell you want. The Xbox was not included in the permission granted and therefore such hacking is a violation of the current statute until found otherwise in a court.

    The fact that Crippen is making money from breaking the law, and in likelyhood abetting a little casual piracy, suggests he's going to get made an example of.

    1. Re:Different situation completely by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "and in likelyhood abetting a little casual piracy"

      Oh, no! Money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money was 'stolen'! This is almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:Different situation completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at the cute AC! He thinks consumers are real people, like corporations!

    3. Re:Different situation completely by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AThe Xbox was not included in the permission granted and therefore such hacking is a violation of the current statute until found otherwise in a court.

      Yes we know that. It doesn't make the hypocrisy of the law any less.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Different situation completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're allowed to rip out the manufacturer-installed seatbelts and swap em for your own seatbelts as long as they pass certain safety standards. You are allowed to print your personal manifesto on the body (at least constitutionally) although I could see you being pulled over by every two-bit cop who read it to harass you about it.

      To further extend the analogy, this is like a car manufacturer saying you can only put Exxon brand gasoline in the tank, and putting in any other kind of gas constitutes an offense punishable by jail time. This guy also apparently wrote a book on how to get gas from non-compliant gas pumps into your Exxon-only tank.

      Captcha: Perish

    5. Re:Different situation completely by delinear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides, the exception was granted specifically to enable certain uses with the person's device. Even though it specifically mentioned the iPhone, and even though that doesn't mean it creates a blanket rule for all other devices, courts will generally follow the precedent set down by previous courts. If the precedent is that a person is allowed to modify their device for their own use so long as the commercial aspect is not present, the courts should apply that to any device in the future (the principle being the use, not the device). The thing that might trip this guy up is the commercial asepct, if he was selling the modification it might run afoul on those grounds.

    6. Re:Different situation completely by Ash+Vince · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, no! Money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money was 'stolen'!

      Actually the losses suffered by the copyright owner through people using illegal copies are quite real. This is because some of the people playing illegally copied games are doing so instead of buying a legitimate copy for themselves. There are also some though who would not have paid the amount asked for a legitimate copy so these are the fictitious losses you are referring to. There is some debate as to how much is which but certainly some of each is going on.

      Like it or not though, both are happening to a degree so Crippen did enable some in his actions and hence deprive poor MS of at least one copy of some crappy overpriced game.

      This is almost as bad as that time when I decided not to buy a product from a store, thereby depriving them of profit that they could, potentially, have had!

      The difference quite clearly being that in that case you left the store and deprived yourself of the enjoyment of the game. It is not the same thing if you play it anyway and then say "Screw them, I would have paid for it if it was better" after you have gained at least some enjoyment from it.

      I am not trying to say that all software piracy is evil, far from it. But there are people on both sides of the fence who are in the wrong. The companies on one side clearly overstate their losses and lobby congress to pass stupid laws for other reasons but there are also people on the other side who just do whatever they can to avoid paying for something even if they find it incredibly useful or entertaining. I am not a great fan of either camp.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  5. Re:Is it just me... by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jailbreak is fine, otherwise the old media will go back to calling it 'hacking', in the bad context.

    --
    Good-bye
  6. I bought it; it's mine. by deweyhewson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I'm considered, when I buy something (phone, game console, computer, whatever) it's mine to do with as I please.

    Whether I want to modify it, or throw it off a cliff, is no longer any of the company's business. That's not to say it excuses piracy (which is an entirely separate matter altogether), but put simply, they have my money, and I have their product. Our relationship should there be at an end.

    I really don't care what the lobbyist-bought-and-paid-for law says on the matter.

    1. Re:I bought it; it's mine. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "As far as I'm considered, when I buy something (phone, game console, computer, whatever) it's mine to do with as I please."

      People with money and an interest in these devices appear to disagree. No matter how wrong they are, I wonder who will be the one who is listened to...

      "That's not to say it excuses piracy"

      Not that reason alone, no. Logic does that.

      "I really don't care what the lobbyist-bought-and-paid-for law says on the matter."

      Really? Well, that won't stop these corporate tools from caring about you and attempting to doom you to the same fate as this guy.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:I bought it; it's mine. by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I'm considered, when I buy something (phone, game console, computer, whatever) it's mine to do with as I please. Whether I want to modify it, or throw it off a cliff, is no longer any of the company's business. That's not to say it excuses piracy (which is an entirely separate matter altogether), but put simply, they have my money, and I have their product. Our relationship should there be at an end. I really don't care what the lobbyist-bought-and-paid-for law says on the matter.

      Exactly. If they didn't want you to own it, they shouldn't have sold it to you.

      And it is simply horrifying that a person can go to a very real prison for tinkering with some zeroes and ones a perfectly legal piece of electronics without harming anyone.

    3. Re:I bought it; it's mine. by Nursie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Errr....

      Sure you can charge money for aftermarket addons for cars!

      Or were you thinking of things like reflashing car firmware to remove speed limiters and the like?

    4. Re:I bought it; it's mine. by tftp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you don't have the right to charge money to install chips into someone else's device.

      That alone, so broadly worded, is not illegal if that 'someone else' owns the device. There are thousands of electronics technicians in the USA (and far more in China) who do this for a living.

      On the other hand, it may be against the law for you to use (or even own) a modified device. But even with guns the legal situation is not that obvious. In any case it's a legal minefield.

    5. Re:I bought it; it's mine. by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Right, but you don't have the right to charge money to install chips into someone else's device."

      Excuse me? Car Tuning shops do it ALL THE TIME.

      Ever hear of a PERFORMANCE CHIP UPGRADE?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  7. The law is weird....you know this. by droopus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Come on, the law is so weird, it has to be real. Fiction has to make sense.

    An example: ever hear of Relevant Conduct? I've talked about this before. Here's the scenario: you get caught with a small bag of weed. You get arrested. While being booked some Fed sees you and says "hey! Aren't you the guy who mowed down all those nuns and orphans with an AK at McDonald's last week?" You deny it, but he's sure and you are charged with mass murder. You go to trial, and win. You are found not guilty after two minutes of deliberation. There was no evidence and the witness said it wasn't you.

    But since the McDonald's was in another state, the case is federal, and you get six months for the weed. Think you'll do it in some easy Club Fed? No way, you have mass murder as relevant conduct. I am not kidding: your custody can be affected by dismissed or acquitted charges. You have been found not guilty, but it's on your Pre-Sentence Investigation and the Bureau of Prisons will send you to a much tougher place: after all, you're a murderer! So, you go to a USP, and are dead in a week.

    As I've posted, I recently did five years in the feds, and rather than be close to my home in a Camp, I was sent to a disciplinary FCI as far away as they could send me, due to charges which were dismissed. The xBox thing does not surprise me in the least...there is so much bad law on the books, which is one reason we have so many people in jail.

    --
    "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    1. Re:The law is weird....you know this. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like you have... a problem with authority! Why don't you stop being a criminal? After all, the law is always right. This is just how the world works, and since it could, potentially, be worse, you might as well not bother trying to change it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:The law is weird....you know this. by droopus · · Score: 5, Informative

      We are the number one per capita nation for incarceration, but more interestingly, we also have the largest number of prison inmates.

      We have 751 people in jail or prison per 100,000 population. UK? 151 per 100k. Germany 88. Japan 63. We throw people behind bars for offenses that would even amount to an arrest in most countries. I met people doing 20 years for a bag of crack the size of a sugar packet. I saw guys doing five for a phone call. I saw guys doing life because they were "co-conspirators" to something that happened 1,000 miles away without their knowledge.

      God Bless America.

      --
      "The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
    3. Re:The law is weird....you know this. by trawg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The prison system in the US is heavily privatised, is it not? I wonder how much of a difference that makes, when there's a strong commercial incentive to have more criminals (assuming that private jails get paid more from the government to house more inmates)?

    4. Re:The law is weird....you know this. by MrSenile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or should all American Indians care, they could try to take ownership back from America, right?

      Sorry, words and rightful indignation is wonderful and all, but to the worlds bias attitude and the money and power to bigots in all forms, those who care have been carefully herded away from being able to change anything worthwhile.

      You think slavery ended for anyone? Work at a job sometime.

      Think race is considered equal for everyone? If that was the case, why bring up Negros at all?

      Nothing has really changed except the face presented to the world on how it's treated.

  8. I think people forget that intent matters by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not all laws take intent in to account, but many do. Why you do something can be as important as what you do. If you kill someone it can be anything from justified self defense, which isn't chargeable, up to 1st degree murder, which can net a death penalty in some places. What it depends on is the specifics of your actions and what you meant to do. In all cases the other person is dead, the major action and outcome are the same. However WHY they are dead matters.

    If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them, justified. If you kill someone through an accident perhaps involving some negligence (like you hit them with your car because you weren't looking) manslaughter 2. If you kill them through direct action, but didn't mean to (like you are beating them up and it goes too far), manslaughter 1. If you mean to kill someone, but don't plan it (like you catch a guy with your wife) murder 2. If you plan out and execute killing someone, murder 1. They are just as dead in all cases, but your reasons and surrounding actions matter.

    Things can also be legal or illegal depending on their intended use. Water pipes/bongs/hookahs have a long tradition of use with tobacco and they are legal in the US for that use. Smoke shops can sell them, and people can buy them. However they are drug paraphernalia and thus illegal if used to smoke marijuana, or other controlled substances. So go in to a smoke shop and ask for a bong to smoke weed, they'll toss you out. Reason is they can get in trouble for selling it if they know it is intended for illegal use.

    Lockpicks are similar. You can own your own lockpicks, no problem. All locksmiths do, and you'd want them to learn. However if you imply that you are going to use them for something illegal, they won't sell them to you and if you do use them for something illegal they are burglary tools and thus not legal.

    Our legal system takes intent in to account, and takes other circumstances. So there is nothing contradictory about saying "An individual can jailbreak their phone for the purpose of adding functionality and that is perfectly legal," and also saying "A person cannot sell Xbox 360 breaks for the purpose of enabling the illicit copying of games."

    There's also the question of what a jailbreak does and doesn't do. In the case of the iPhone, it allows for fairly significant functionality, like installing Flash. Legally this is called a "substantial non-infringing use" and hence is a DMCA exemption. The 360 hack? Does it do anything other than let you play copied games? If not or if the uses are only superficial, then it probably isn't legal.

    Now if you don't like the law, think it should be changed, the answer is to let your representatives know. They are the ones who make the laws, they can unmake them.

    1. Re:I think people forget that intent matters by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Now if you don't like the law, think it should be changed, the answer is to let your representatives know."

      Well, that will only work if you're a person with a seemingly unlimited supply of money. Sadly, that is not the case with so many people. They will almost always listen to the lobbyist over the poor civilian.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    2. Re:I think people forget that intent matters by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is a little bit chicken and egg. Until the crack is available, people are unlikely to be able to develop specific uses for the crack (indeed, to do so they'd either have to have full developer licenses, which instantly bars a big section of society, or they'd have to break the law by cracking the console anyway). Sure, the first use is always to play "backups", mainly because that's the simplest use, but anyone involved in the scene around the original XBOX will know that eventually all kinds of amazing tools and apps were developed to take advantage of the crack. The most significant of these being XBMC, which has outlived the console itself and even back then was years ahead of many of today's commercial media centre offerings. That's why it's particularly significant that they're trying to prevent testimony from someone involved in that scene, it's like they're closing down that avenue of defence specifically so they can play the "this will only be used for piracy" card.

  9. Re:Jailbreaking? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He modified his own property. That is what he did. Now, whether this allows others to potentially 'steal' money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (the piracy is bad because they steal "potential profit" argument) is irrelevant. It can be used to play backup copies, yes. Now, no one can legally play their backed up games in fear of getting in legal trouble because lobbyists have an illogical fear of 'piracy'. Useless. Pirates will do this whether it is legal or not, and people who have legitimate uses for it could suffer. In some ways, it sounds similar to DRM.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  10. If it's Microsoft, it's not really yours. by kawabago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just what MIcrosoft always wanted, rentable software. This is progress?

  11. Why bother? by iamacat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It takes a sick groupie to keep buying stuff from people who are trying to put you in jail for using your own paid for product. Just say no with your wallet. There are plenty of inexpensive desktops, laptops and other devices that officially support Linux or even come with it pre installed. Or you take free old hardware from your friends, coworkers, Goodwill and other situations where the original vendor doesn't benefit or the indirect benefit is offset by public good. Eventually some company, big or small, will get the message that there is a need for a different kind of product. And serving even one in 100K people on planet earth can sustain a small business.

  12. Re:Is it just me... by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Informative

    In this case jailbreak is not fine. He wasn't jailbreaking the Xbox, he was charging people to mod it to play backups/pirated media. Jailbreaking is generally accepted as removing device enforced limits on what 3rd party software can run. The mod he was using still will not allow homebrew or other non approved software to work.

  13. Re:I find this not hard to understand by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would challenge your view that the only "real usage" of moding a game console is to play illegally copied games.

    Of course I can only speak for myself but my intent when I modded my Xbox was so I could copy the games I already owned onto its hard drive and no longer need the easily damaged disks, that in some cases cost me $70+, to play the game. The originals are now stored in a safe location and will only be used to reload the hard disk should it fail at a later date.

    My action also allowed me to extend the life of my console since I no longer needed to use the optical disk drive, which was already starting to fail, and maximize my investment in the games. If I had to keep switching the disks, risking damage to them every time and causing wear on the optical disk drive, I would buy far fewer games than I have. From that view the modding actually led to the sale of more games by the distributors.

    If Microsoft chooses to ban me from using my modded console on their network I do not have a problem with that, they own the servers, but I own the Xbox and will do with it as I please with it.

    And I still fail to see how jail breaking a game console is any different than jail breaking an iPhone, in both cases it allows the owner to do what they want with device they own. If anything I see more of an argument against jail breaking a phone that was discounted pursuant to a service contract and therefor not fully owned by the purchaser until the terms of the contract are fulfilled, than a game console which was purchased outright.

  14. Re:Why is the article comparing these 2? by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There really is not a difference between jail breaking your phone to allow you to run pirated games, and selling Xbox 360 mods to allow you to install whatever apps you like. I don't know what unapproved apps are available for the 360, but I still run XBMC on my XBox1. In fact, XBMC has always been the most used app on my Xboxes.

  15. Re:Jailbreaking? by loufoque · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Note that as far as I'm aware, that's only the case in the US.
    In Europe, you are given explicit rights to circumvent DRM for fair use. In France, there even was a proposal to force the manufacturer to provide information on how to circumvent it for that purpose, but of course it was scrapped.

  16. isn't it obvious? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because Apple is the new blac^W Microsoft.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  17. Re:Is it just me... by rickzor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it would allow homebrew software. His mod was an extension of the soldering mod that allowed users to install linux on the original xbox, instead modified for the 360 hardware. All the mod does is stop the xbox from checking if it is a factory made, xbox manufactured game when you load a disc (somewhat like how a jailbroken iphone can use non app-store apps) and instead it will run whatever you stick in there, from game backups to a bios bootloader.

    Also, the article states that he would only mod for backups, and if piracy were brought up it would be a "no-deal".

  18. I can play non-sequitur too! by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back in July, the Librarian of Congress officially made it legal to jailbreak your iPhone (or any phone). So why is it that the government is trying to prosecute Matthew Crippen for jailbreaking Xbox 360s?

    I got dinner from Arby's tonight. So why is it raining outside?

  19. Only if civilians keep that attitude by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The prime interest of a politician is, and must be, to get reelected. After all, fail at that, and you aren't a politician anymore. So it takes precedence. Ultimately that means keeping the voters happy. Now if the voters ignore the shit you pull, well then you can do as you please. However if voters hold them to account, then they'll do as they are told (or be replaced by ones who do).

    So, if you keep that defeatist attitude, and espouse it to others, then yes, you'll have say at all. However if you wake up and realize that indeed the voters DO choose who is in office, then you'll realize that isn't the case. No, you as a single person cannot change things all on your own. However you shouldn't be able to, this isn't a dictatorship. Doesn't mean you can't make a difference. Let them know how you feel, and let your friends know to do the same. If enough people care, change will happen.

    This crap of "Oh lobbyists control everything and there's nothing we can do!" is only true if people let it be true. Your vote, your voice, is just as important as anyone elses. However if you just bitch about it and act powerless, well then you are.

    Remember that having only a small amount of power (which is all a single voter has) is not the same as having no power. It only becomes no power if your attitude demands it be such.

  20. Re:Why bother? EFF bothers. by andydread · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now how do you get the ignorant masses from running out and purchasing/licensing DRM infected gear? There is no warning label on such goods that state "WARNING: If you modify this device you may go to prison" Maybe there should be a campaign to educate consumers in such a fashion. Who is going to sponsor it? Maybe EFF? How many people on Slashdot donate to the EFF? I do. Every time the make news I donate again. People can thank the EFF for it now being legal to jailbreak their Iphones. Just a quick google search shows some of the valuable work they have done and you can go here to see a list of that valuable work. I urge every Slashdotter to Join the EFF and help them fight the RIAA/MPAA/BSA juggernauts. Any little bit helps.

  21. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except that exactly this isn't possible on 360. By modding the DVD-ROM (which he apparently did), he cannot run his own software - he can only run copied games that are already signed by Microsoft. This is totally different from what bunnie did on the original xbox.

  22. Homeland Security? Seriously? by Openstandards.net · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is anyone else concerned that homeland security arrested him? Weren't they created to fight terrorism in response to 9/11?!? And, what on earth does it have to do with "Immigration and Customs"? It sounds like the ESA went to an organization that they knew (1) had nothing important to do today, (2) would have the least capability to understand the issue involved and (3), would have a tendency to overblow the importance, and (4) be desperate to throw someone in jail.