I don't know what those percentages are and neither do you. I only know from my personal experience. I have two modded XBOXes and both run XBMC exclusively. Neither of them have any pirated games, so I'd say from my experience 0% of them are used for piracy. Common sense tells me that quite a few of them (if not a majority) are used for such nefarious purposes, but there are some users who don't pirate.
As far as XBMC is concerned, if MS has a problem with the XBMC distribution, then let them go after the distributors who compile and release builds. I'm sure MS would love the press that that would generate.
No it would not. But look where this case is going:
We have: 77 copyright violations plus a circumvention device and DMCA violation all in one neat little court case. You cannot argue that the console was being sold for homebrew app development in this particular case. It's just an attempt (or at least appears to be one) to wrap up console pirates and modders into one neat little package. What we have here is selling a mod chip to facilitate software piracy. It's pretty clear-cut here and it sucks for everybody.
Now whenever someone gets busted in the future for mod chips, all they will do is point to this case and say "See! It's really all about piracy!" Even if no pirated games were included in that particular bust.
What a nice Christmas present to give to Microsoft (and Sony, RIAA, MPAA...)
Probably this was a tie-in offense. That is, in order to give strength to the "no mod" provisions of the DMCA (via the anti-circumvention clauses) they cherry pick a case that also includes multiple copyright violations to give weight to their argument that console modders are nothing more than filthy pirates.
The article sure makes it look like installing the mod chip is the problem, doesn't it? I have to get to the 5th paragraph 3/4 of the way through the article to find out there's 77 pirated games sold to an undercover agent as part of the purchase. Up until that point it all looked like a "DMCA screwing the modders" article. If the facts were buried any deeper I'd expect a sign stating "Beware of the leopard" nearby.
From TFA: During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
I was surprised too. There is no distinction about passive/active transmitters - it's a blanket ban.
I just read the policy again, it says: "no radio transmitters", and if that's not enough, later on it also says: "no wireless devices" in such a context that IrDA is also included in the ban as well as Cellular, Bluetooth, WiFi and other RF technolgies. Then they go on ban Cellphones, Cameras, PDAs/Laptops, thumbdrives, cellphones, iPods/MP3 players.
Receive-only is still OK. I am surprised AM/FM radios and TVs are allowed (or just not covered).
They just wanted to make the rules "flexible" enough to pre-emptively ban any other gadgets that may come on the marketplace we haven't dreamed up yet. There's also a blanket ban on "recordable media" (CDR's) and another ban on "personally owned media" (CD's, DVDs, etc) in general. Losing the ability to use my iPod while coding was quite annoying even though I always made sure I brought nothing with me that could enable me to connect it to the company computer.
Just yesterday I dragged out the TI VC33 DSP evaluation board I've had sitting on my desk at the DoD contractor I work for to see if it had an on-board serial port. Much to my surprise I found a couple of microphones built into it.
Now: DSP board with microphones + DSP development kit + development machine on the company network + company network on the Internet.
Instant security violation.
I found another:
A blanket ban on ditigal transmitters. This was issued to ban cellphones/blackberries/etc. But reading into the rules, they tried to make it broad to cover anything. Well, that "anything" also included: car alarm remote fobs, and immobilizer car keys. It also covered items like Speedpass, and the very badges we wear.
Note the above ban is not companywide. It's applicable everywhere except where the execs/senior management reside.
I won't tell them about what happens when you plug a set of walkman-style headphones (not banned) into the microphone port of the computer here...
While I agree with previous posters that all the camera is is just a glorified memory card holder for stealing data, there's a better use for cameras that just "lay around". Much like the old "photocopy your butt and stick it in the paper tray" trick.
Download some pr0n in JPG format (preferably the gross amatuer kind). If we have a Sony camera (as in my case) name the file DSCXXXXX.JPG (where XXXXX is some integer w/leading zeros). Copy the file to the camera's photo directory. There will be no thumbnail file, so the photo takes a bit longer than normal to appear.
The next time the owner flips through the pics on the camera, he'll be in for a big surprise. (He - because if the victim's a guy, it's a joke. If it's a woman, it's sexual harassment).
No, there's a Wally World in Panorama City, CA that was just like that on the very day of their Grand Opening. Anything of value or small size (loaf of bread or smaller) is locked up. Security tags on and in everything. Large numbers of bag-checkers at the doors checking everyone. And yes, it is in a minority community.
8 miles away in Porter Ranch, all they lock up are the knives, spray paint, small expensive electronics and video games. Guess what kind of neighborhood? White (and some Korean). Door checks are not "mandatory" -- instead they do "random" samples and check people who set off the alarms.
No. I think it is only regarding civil trials. That way they get rid of juries and their expensive verdicts. Just including this clause in their license tells me they are full of shit - and they know they are full of it too.
If you open the box on said piece of software, break the seal on the disc, read the EULA and don't agree with the terms, what do you do?
The store you bought it from isn't going to take opened software back at all. I'm also pretty sure the software company's response to a phone call would be "Just return it to the retailer." I do suppose you could put the screws to a retailer if the EULA says to return it to the place of purchase for a refund, but even that is asking for a hassle.
Then again Sony's license says the maximum they are liable for in any case is $5.00. So I guess if you pester them enough they'll send you a check for five bucks.
Article 10. GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY ...
2. YOU HEREBY WAIVE ALL RIGHTS AND/OR ENTITLEMENT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DISPUTE THAT ARISES OUT OF OR RELATES IN ANY WAY TO THIS EULA OR THE SOFTWARE.
Wow, no jury trials, eh? They are really covering their bases here if they cannot count on the "common person" to agree with them in a jury trial.
I was aware of the Tokyo ruling, but not of the reversal. Perhaps Akihabara won't be as desolate for the Japanese game collector as it was when I was last there in 2000. Sofmap (yes, I know I misspelled it) was a pathetic site back then.
1. Relevant Facts on Second-hand Video Game Software Issues No one argues that the approval of a maker is required to re-sell a product once the maker has manufactured it and put it into a stream of commerce. Free circulation of products is essential for a free economy.
But a group of people are arguing that, for one product, such approval is required for subsequent transactions, even after the sale by the maker. The product is computer video game software.
On January 14 of 1998, the Computer Entertainment Software Association ("CESA"), an association of video game software makers, together with the Association of Copyright on Computer Software (""ACCS") and the Japan Personal Computer Association ("JPCA"), initiated an "ILLEGAL SECOND-HAND SOFTWARE DESTRUCTION CAMPAIGN" based upon the argument that video game is a "movie" under the Copyright Act and that distribution right attaches to it (Section 26 of Copyright Act). Under the Copyright Act of Japan, no distribution right is given to any copyrighted work other than "Movie".
The article is listed 1998, in 1999 the court (in Osaka) ruled against Sofmap and for the CESA, basically making the 2nd hand videogame market illegal (at least in Osaka).
Or Google " CESA Japan "no resale" " (quotes around "no resale") for more articles.
Whether the used stores are ignoring the issue or not is another matter...
That's a good point. With my Mac, Canon GL-1, and Final Cut Pro I have everything I need to make the next big hit and make it look as good as any professional product shot straight-to-video.
Everything except imagination and talent. Not that the lack of those two things ever stopped Hollywood.
CDs and DVDs come with printing on them that they may not be re-sold for any reason now. Not only can we not utilize a CD in art, we can't edit it to a new form and re-sell it with the same profit rules that we apply to any other physical property. How exactly is this fair?
I always thought the doctrine of first sale prevented the "no resale" markings on CDs and DVDs.
I knew it was a bad omen when Japanese publishers started marking media (especially videogames) with the "No Resale" tag to kill the secondary (used) market about 4 or 5 years ago. One court case later, SoftMap loses against the publishers and "No Resale" becomes enforceable in Japan. What it means is that you need permission from the copyright holders to resell copyrighted goods. Fat chance getting this permission since the publishers/rights holders would rather sell an extra copy than allow a used copy to change hands.
Fast forward a couple years and now it's making appearances in the US too. Why am I not surprised?
I am fully aware of the points you bring up. I also (in my original post) made it apparent I knew about the licensing vs. owning issue.
My point was this was the first time I saw an offer from a copyright owner (and a good example of one too!) stating that I own the product I am purchasing when they usually make it clear that I don't actually own the content, I'm just licensing it.
If it were an ad from Best Buy or Circuit City stating "Own any of these DVDs for $19.99", I could not say what I did because they did not have the rights to do so in the first place. Where they become vulnerable is the fact that if I do buy a DVD for $19.99 and find out I DON'T own them, they made a false offer where I don't actually own the product. If I did actually own the product, I could do with it as I wish.
If they wanted no controversy, the store display should have read:
"Now Available for a Limited Time Only: Buy a License for Viewing Cinderella Today!* Free DVD media included!"
"* licensed for in-home viewing only, all other rights reserved"
Possibly, but there was no fine print on the display. I'm trying to find a picture of it on the 'net, but all I can find are the promos that came out before release - these displays came out with the DVDs and possibly a few posters as well.
Disney had better word their ads and store displays more carefully in the future.
Visiting a local video store there was a large poster and floor display advertising the new release of Disney's "Cinderella." The ad said: "Own it today". The key word in the ad was "own", not "license." This display (large cardboard thing that looked like a castle) came from Disney itself and was full of DVDs.
I bought one for the kid to watch and now I am the proud owner of a copy. Yeah, the disc says something about "licensed for in-home entertainment only" when played, but that was in the shrink-wrap and conflicts with the contract I agreed to when buying it. So Disney will just have to suck it up.
Perhaps one should collect these ads to present to a court if there are any DMCA issues. If I have an ad from a copyright holder (like Disney) that literally says I own the property I purchased (disc, case inserts and data on it) instead of licensing it then I am the owner of the copyrighted work that is affixed to the disc and can do with it as I (or anyone else who buys a disc) pleases. Perhaps this is Disney's way of releasing their classic films into the public domain?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what those percentages are and neither do you. I only know from my personal experience. I have two modded XBOXes and both run XBMC exclusively. Neither of them have any pirated games, so I'd say from my experience 0% of them are used for piracy. Common sense tells me that quite a few of them (if not a majority) are used for such nefarious purposes, but there are some users who don't pirate.
As far as XBMC is concerned, if MS has a problem with the XBMC distribution, then let them go after the distributors who compile and release builds. I'm sure MS would love the press that that would generate.
No it would not. But look where this case is going:
We have: 77 copyright violations plus a circumvention device and DMCA violation all in one neat little court case. You cannot argue that the console was being sold for homebrew app development in this particular case. It's just an attempt (or at least appears to be one) to wrap up console pirates and modders into one neat little package. What we have here is selling a mod chip to facilitate software piracy. It's pretty clear-cut here and it sucks for everybody.
Now whenever someone gets busted in the future for mod chips, all they will do is point to this case and say "See! It's really all about piracy!" Even if no pirated games were included in that particular bust.
What a nice Christmas present to give to Microsoft (and Sony, RIAA, MPAA...)
Probably this was a tie-in offense. That is, in order to give strength to the "no mod" provisions of the DMCA (via the anti-circumvention clauses) they cherry pick a case that also includes multiple copyright violations to give weight to their argument that console modders are nothing more than filthy pirates.
The article sure makes it look like installing the mod chip is the problem, doesn't it? I have to get to the 5th paragraph 3/4 of the way through the article to find out there's 77 pirated games sold to an undercover agent as part of the purchase. Up until that point it all looked like a "DMCA screwing the modders" article. If the facts were buried any deeper I'd expect a sign stating "Beware of the leopard" nearby.
From TFA:
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
According to this PDF form, "Proof of Service by Mail" for a subpoena does exist. All it has to be is First Class mail. It sucks, but it exists.
Better read this. Unless you are Canadian.
We are not talking about stealing company data. We are talking about banned items at certain companies in reference to the main article.
I was surprised too. There is no distinction about passive/active transmitters - it's a blanket ban.
I just read the policy again, it says: "no radio transmitters", and if that's not enough, later on it also says: "no wireless devices" in such a context that IrDA is also included in the ban as well as Cellular, Bluetooth, WiFi and other RF technolgies. Then they go on ban Cellphones, Cameras, PDAs/Laptops, thumbdrives, cellphones, iPods/MP3 players.
Receive-only is still OK. I am surprised AM/FM radios and TVs are allowed (or just not covered).
They just wanted to make the rules "flexible" enough to pre-emptively ban any other gadgets that may come on the marketplace we haven't dreamed up yet. There's also a blanket ban on "recordable media" (CDR's) and another ban on "personally owned media" (CD's, DVDs, etc) in general. Losing the ability to use my iPod while coding was quite annoying even though I always made sure I brought nothing with me that could enable me to connect it to the company computer.
Just yesterday I dragged out the TI VC33 DSP evaluation board I've had sitting on my desk at the DoD contractor I work for to see if it had an on-board serial port. Much to my surprise I found a couple of microphones built into it.
Now:
DSP board with microphones + DSP development kit + development machine on the company network + company network on the Internet.
Instant security violation.
I found another:
A blanket ban on ditigal transmitters. This was issued to ban cellphones/blackberries/etc. But reading into the rules, they tried to make it broad to cover anything. Well, that "anything" also included: car alarm remote fobs, and immobilizer car keys. It also covered items like Speedpass, and the very badges we wear.
Note the above ban is not companywide. It's applicable everywhere except where the execs/senior management reside.
I won't tell them about what happens when you plug a set of walkman-style headphones (not banned) into the microphone port of the computer here...
While I agree with previous posters that all the camera is is just a glorified memory card holder for stealing data, there's a better use for cameras that just "lay around". Much like the old "photocopy your butt and stick it in the paper tray" trick.
Download some pr0n in JPG format (preferably the gross amatuer kind). If we have a Sony camera (as in my case) name the file DSCXXXXX.JPG (where XXXXX is some integer w/leading zeros). Copy the file to the camera's photo directory. There will be no thumbnail file, so the photo takes a bit longer than normal to appear.
The next time the owner flips through the pics on the camera, he'll be in for a big surprise. (He - because if the victim's a guy, it's a joke. If it's a woman, it's sexual harassment).
No, there's a Wally World in Panorama City, CA that was just like that on the very day of their Grand Opening. Anything of value or small size (loaf of bread or smaller) is locked up. Security tags on and in everything. Large numbers of bag-checkers at the doors checking everyone. And yes, it is in a minority community.
8 miles away in Porter Ranch, all they lock up are the knives, spray paint, small expensive electronics and video games. Guess what kind of neighborhood? White (and some Korean). Door checks are not "mandatory" -- instead they do "random" samples and check people who set off the alarms.
No. I think it is only regarding civil trials. That way they get rid of juries and their expensive verdicts. Just including this clause in their license tells me they are full of shit - and they know they are full of it too.
Well look at it this way:
If you open the box on said piece of software, break the seal on the disc, read the EULA and don't agree with the terms, what do you do?
The store you bought it from isn't going to take opened software back at all. I'm also pretty sure the software company's response to a phone call would be "Just return it to the retailer." I do suppose you could put the screws to a retailer if the EULA says to return it to the place of purchase for a refund, but even that is asking for a hassle.
Then again Sony's license says the maximum they are liable for in any case is $5.00. So I guess if you pester them enough they'll send you a check for five bucks.
Personally, I think this is for civil trials. I didn't consider the possibility of a criminal trial.
Now I'm confused. Is that supposed to be a logical AND or a bitwise AND?
-1 && -1 = 1
-1 & -1 = -1
I was aware of the Tokyo ruling, but not of the reversal. Perhaps Akihabara won't be as desolate for the Japanese game collector as it was when I was last there in 2000. Sofmap (yes, I know I misspelled it) was a pathetic site back then.
http://www.arts.or.jp/judge/judge_tokyo/t_17.html
Here's an excerpt:
The article is listed 1998, in 1999 the court (in Osaka) ruled against Sofmap and for the CESA, basically making the 2nd hand videogame market illegal (at least in Osaka).
Or Google " CESA Japan "no resale" " (quotes around "no resale") for more articles.
Whether the used stores are ignoring the issue or not is another matter...
That's a good point. With my Mac, Canon GL-1, and Final Cut Pro I have everything I need to make the next big hit and make it look as good as any professional product shot straight-to-video.
Everything except imagination and talent. Not that the lack of those two things ever stopped Hollywood.
I always thought the doctrine of first sale prevented the "no resale" markings on CDs and DVDs.
I knew it was a bad omen when Japanese publishers started marking media (especially videogames) with the "No Resale" tag to kill the secondary (used) market about 4 or 5 years ago. One court case later, SoftMap loses against the publishers and "No Resale" becomes enforceable in Japan. What it means is that you need permission from the copyright holders to resell copyrighted goods. Fat chance getting this permission since the publishers/rights holders would rather sell an extra copy than allow a used copy to change hands.
Fast forward a couple years and now it's making appearances in the US too. Why am I not surprised?
I am fully aware of the points you bring up. I also (in my original post) made it apparent I knew about the licensing vs. owning issue.
My point was this was the first time I saw an offer from a copyright owner (and a good example of one too!) stating that I own the product I am purchasing when they usually make it clear that I don't actually own the content, I'm just licensing it.
If it were an ad from Best Buy or Circuit City stating "Own any of these DVDs for $19.99", I could not say what I did because they did not have the rights to do so in the first place. Where they become vulnerable is the fact that if I do buy a DVD for $19.99 and find out I DON'T own them, they made a false offer where I don't actually own the product. If I did actually own the product, I could do with it as I wish.
If they wanted no controversy, the store display should have read:
"Now Available for a Limited Time Only: Buy a License for Viewing Cinderella Today!* Free DVD media included!"
"* licensed for in-home viewing only, all other rights reserved"
Possibly, but there was no fine print on the display. I'm trying to find a picture of it on the 'net, but all I can find are the promos that came out before release - these displays came out with the DVDs and possibly a few posters as well.
Disney had better word their ads and store displays more carefully in the future.
Visiting a local video store there was a large poster and floor display advertising the new release of Disney's "Cinderella." The ad said: "Own it today". The key word in the ad was "own", not "license." This display (large cardboard thing that looked like a castle) came from Disney itself and was full of DVDs.
I bought one for the kid to watch and now I am the proud owner of a copy. Yeah, the disc says something about "licensed for in-home entertainment only" when played, but that was in the shrink-wrap and conflicts with the contract I agreed to when buying it. So Disney will just have to suck it up.
Perhaps one should collect these ads to present to a court if there are any DMCA issues. If I have an ad from a copyright holder (like Disney) that literally says I own the property I purchased (disc, case inserts and data on it) instead of licensing it then I am the owner of the copyrighted work that is affixed to the disc and can do with it as I (or anyone else who buys a disc) pleases. Perhaps this is Disney's way of releasing their classic films into the public domain?
What do you mean? It's not like the rest of the world didn't put up with each of those as well as a UFIA by Sony.