Slashdot Mirror
Judge Berates Prosecutors In Xbox Modding Trial
mrbongo writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"Opening statements in the first-of-its-kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had 'serious concerns about the government's case.' ... Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday."
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
None.
This is the insidiousness the IP monopolists are trying to get away with, the ability to sell something yet still OWN it.
Unless the XBox modder bought an XBox, then used it to make other XBoxes, they have no beef.
Corporatism != Free Market
Love the car analogies...
A (performance) modded car could be used almost exclusively to exceed the speed limit. Easy argument against the practice (lets ignore for a moment emission laws).
Where as an end user could argue that the modifications make their life more convenient by allowing them to reach the posted speed limit more expediently.
Just because something allows you to potentially break the law doesn't always make it illegal.
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Analogy is the only way to compare what we know and have experience with to new situations. The vary basis of language is analogy and categorization -- we come to a common agreement on what constitutes "yellow" and treat all things of that class the same way even though it's unlikely that your yellow schoolbus is the the same color as my yellow lemon.
Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
The category of "things protected by IP laws that you can modify aftermarket" seems like a pretty relevant place to start comparison. If you want to object to the analogy based on some specific difference between cars and game consoles feel free, but don't try to dismiss the comparison out of hand.
Also note that "street legal" is an irrelevant comparison for game consoles, as their operation is not regulated by the state, nor is the case at hand about the operation of the modified device -- which the defendant did not do -- only the modification itself and the sale thereof.