Crap. There's a chance I know this guy. Dammit.
Was he modding 360s or regular XBoxs? Because there is a THIN line of legislation he could use as a defense if it's not the 360.
The question is how much damage his modding caused (dollarwise)...anyway, I think any prison sentences are nut justified....I would rather think a big time fine is the better option.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not enough data for me to go on.
Was he overriding the machine's DRM so someone could make, say, a backup of their HALO files? Or burn the DVD itself?
Or was he making it so Bill could borrow Ted's copy of HALO, burn himself a copy, and then give it back to Ted and they both play?
The former I'd be inclined to find not guilty. It's not his fault if someone takes a modified console and uses it for illegal purposes, if he didn't intend for it to be used that way. It would be like going after the hardware store owner for selling the paint thinner some kid huffed.
Not enough data for me to go on.
Was he overriding the machine's DRM so someone could make, say, a backup of their HALO files? Or burn the DVD itself?
Or was he making it so Bill could borrow Ted's copy of HALO, burn himself a copy, and then give it back to Ted and they both play?
The former I'd be inclined to find not guilty. It's not his fault if someone takes a modified console and uses it for illegal purposes, if he didn't intend for it to be used that way. It would be like going after the hardware store owner for selling the paint thinner some kid huffed.
If it's the type of Modding I *THINK* it is, then he probably just made the version of Windows it was running grab its ankles so he could play some emulations on his Xbox instead of his computer. Sometimes you can get some xbox games on there, but you'd need a new hard drive to put in there, as xbox games are not small. Still, he could have been doing something else with it, like turning it into a linux box.
|
Meanwhile, Crippen suffered a devastating blow to his defense last week when the judge prohibited the defendant from raising a “fair use” defense. He had hoped to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had non-infringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyright material.
This is the most concerning part of the article, IMO. A law should not have provisions in it limiting how one can defend themselves from that law. I hope this guy is fully acquitted. Microsoft needs to realize that they no longer own these consoles once the consumer pays for them.
Meanwhile, Crippen suffered a devastating blow to his defense last week when the judge prohibited the defendant from raising a “fair use” defense. He had hoped to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had non-infringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyright material.This is the most concerning part of the article, IMO. A law should not have provisions in it limiting how one can defend themselves from that law. I hope this guy is fully acquitted. Microsoft needs to realize that they no longer own these consoles once the consumer pays for them.
Jesus Christ. I know I'm hardly capable of being fair or balanced(haha) on this issue, but is this judge on the take from Microsoft or something? That was his entire defense he just pulled out from under him! What's next, we aren't allowed to post on Paizo because Microsoft doesn't want Windows associated with roleplaying games? Yeesh!!!!
I'm thinking this judge wants to make "an example" of him. I see a LOT of angry geeks with technologically sharp teeth striking back if this case goes south.
Can someone clue me in as to what the hell "XBox Modding" is? Evidently it's some kind of major felony, and I'm guessing it has something to do with technology, and that's as far as I can get.
Can someone clue me in as to what the hell "XBox Modding" is? Evidently it's some kind of major felony, and I'm guessing it has something to do with technology, and that's as far as I can get.
Not exactly sure of the methods but...From Wikipedia
There are four main methods of modding the Xbox:
*Modchip: installing a modchip inside the Xbox that bypasses the original BIOS, with a hacked BIOS to circumvent the security mechanisms.
*TSOP flashing: reflashing the onboard BIOS chip with a hacked BIOS to circumvent the security mechanisms. The Xbox BIOS is contained on a commodity EEPROM (the 'TSOP'), which can be made writable by the Xbox by bridging points on the motherboard.
Flashing is usually carried out by using a specially crafted gamesave (see 'Game save exploit', below) to flash the onboard TSOP, but the TSOP can also be de-soldered and re-written in a standard EEPROM programmer. This method only works on 1.0 to 1.5 Xboxes, as later versions replace the commodity TSOP with an LPC ROM contained within a proprietary chip.Softmods: installing additional software files to the Xbox hard drive, which exploit programming errors in the Dashboard to gain control of the system, and overwrite the in-memory copy of the BIOS.
Soft modification is known to be safe for Xbox Live if the user enables multibooting with the Microsoft dashboard and an original game disc is used. (See also: Xbox softmods)*Game save exploit: using select official game releases to load game saves that exploit buffer overflows in the save game handling. When these special game saves are loaded, they access an interface with scripts for installing the necessary softmod files. Disassembly of the Xbox is not required when installing most game save exploits.
*Hot swapping: using a computer to change the data on the hard drive. This requires having the Xbox unlock the hard drive when it is turned on, then swapping the powered hard drive into a running computer. By using a Linux-based Live CD, data on the hard drive can be read, altered, and deleted.
In most cases, an automated script will automatically install the softmod files directly to the Xbox hard drive. This technique has been used extensively to harbor cheating on many online games. Disassembly of the console is required to perform a hot swap.
Can someone clue me in as to what the hell "XBox Modding" is? Evidently it's some kind of major felony, and I'm guessing it has something to do with technology, and that's as far as I can get.
Okay. Keep in mind my version of events is quite stilted.
Several years ago, in a move that only could be considered incredibly stupid, Microsoft decided to enter the console gaming market with a video game system called an X-Box.
This game system ran on Windows, which is the operating system created by Microsoft. Since it runs on Windows, the X-Box could used to do all sorts of Windows-based stuff, from simple everyday computing(and pretty quickly too considering how powerful the X-box was during the time), to playing games. As a console gaming platform, the X-box was geared to run games, particularly games that might have only been released for a home computer. This was amazing, as it opened up an entire genre of games(mainly first person shooters, but also a certain types of roleplaying games) to people who might never have been able to enjoy them because they lacked the technical know-how(or deep pockets to upgrade an aging home machine) to run such games on a PC. Those who DID have the technical know how to do these things, being people of innate curiosity and ingenuity, decided to crack open their X-box(invalidating their warranty as a result) to see how it worked. ONce they discovered that its guts were very much like any other PC that ran Windows, they went wild. People started to modify, or mod, their X-boxs on their own dime. Some of these modifications were purely cosmetic. Others went deeper, installing new hard drives onto their X-boxes and using them in a fashion very similar to their home computer. Still others went EVEN deeper, and eventually came out with a suite of programs that would allow them to play other, non-X-box based games on their X-Box.
The legality of this was questioned even then, however, since they had invalidated their warranty by opening the machine, legally such individuals were on their own and under no more threat from Microsoft than they would be if they opened up their hewlett packard or dell PC and monkeyed around with its innards. In fact, their biggest foe would be those companies whose programs they installed on their X-boxs, most of whom seemed not to care, although the occasional cease and desist letter was sent out. For a time, people with the know-how ran lucrative side businesses for themselves, modifying the X-boxes of others for a small price and installing one or more of these programs on these X-boxes. It has been rumored that the X-box 360 was released a bit early(red rings of death and other technical glitches, anyone?) to indirectly compete with those who had turned the X-box into something other than what it was supposed to be. Fortunately/Unfortunately, it worked, 360 picked up, and X-box was left behind. However, Microsoft and a few others were not happy with those who had altered the system in what they viewed as a negative way, and threatened lawsuit, primarily against those who they considered to had truly broken the law by downloading true X-box games(that you would normally have to go into the store to buy) onto X-box hard drives. Since the X-box had been left behind largely by those who wanted the bright, shiny and new 360, this was often considered by many to be little more than saber-rattling on the part of Microsoft.
However, it seems that they were wrong.
This is breech of contract which I thought was a civil penalty, not a criminal one.
I'm no Sebastian, but I think this depends on who is suing whom.
@ Archlich: I was going to ask for a translation of your post, but then...
@ Freehold DM: Great summary! -- I get it now! And I appreciate you explaining the background in a way that non-video-gamers like me could understand. I owe you one.
This is breech of contract which I thought was a civil penalty, not a criminal one.
DMCA from the 90's is the federal criminal law in question.
The 28-year-old defendant is accused of modding consoles for between $60 and $80 a pop.
The defendant is charged with two counts of breaching anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, carrying maximum five-year penalties for each count.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
The same sort of case fell over here in Australia... so we can mod away.
|
stuff about how people were able to mod XBoxes because they're so similar to PCs
Eh, It's not like other consoles have never been modded before. Every console that's ever been released has had some tech-savy guy to crack it open, fiddle around with certain bits, and have it doing things that the company that made the console never intended it to do.
The legality issue mostly comes from the fact that one of the more popular mods is to allow a console to play a copied game. Again, this was not new to the XBox...it had existed since the earliest home consoles. With the PS1 and other disc-based consoles, it simply became easier, since you can copy games fairly easily. And now that you can store entire games on a console's hard drive, even easier.
Judge berates Prosecution.
If I get that right, the Prosecution based their claim on one security guy making (probably illegal) recordings of the defendant in his home? And another one has modded consoles himself in the past? Now that´s sweet. From what I gathered from this, the defendant is as guilty as someone developing P2P data sharing software - of course you can use it illegally, but if there is a legal possibility to use it, it cannot be illegal to do so in the first place, I´d say. This is an age-old discussion, but the manufacturer cannot be hold responsible for abuse of his product, if the product is legal to begin with.
Stefan
Judge berates Prosecution.If I get that right, the Prosecution based their claim on one security guy making (probably illegal) recordings of the defendant in his home? And another one has modded consoles himself in the past? Now that´s sweet. From what I gathered from this, the defendant is as guilty as someone developing P2P data sharing software - of course you can use it illegally, but if there is a legal possibility to use it, it cannot be illegal to do so in the first place, I´d say. This is an age-old discussion, but the manufacturer cannot be hold responsible for abuse of his product, if the product is legal to begin with.
Stefan
The most interesting element is that the judge may, despite earlier comments be allowing a fair use defence, which I hope will allow the defendant to get off.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Prosecutors dismiss the case
Reads like procecutors tried to embelish their case, and got busted.
Prosecutors dismiss the caseReads like procecutors tried to embelish their case, and got busted.
OOOOOOOUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!! VICTORY!!!!!!
Prosecutors were definitely happy to settle rather than allow precedence of fair use defense here. Given the Judge has seemingly shifted to allow such a defense, and all evidence the Modder knew pirated software might be used was via tainted informants who couldn´t be used in court (once discovered), fair use winning a case would have meant DMCA as a whole would be massively neutered. Dropping one case is irrelevant to Feds/Big Content. I hope the Modder refuses to settle so he can win on fair use (and presumably sue back for reckless prosecution... he doesn´t seem to be getting rich of this, so he could probably use the money)
Prosecutors were definitely happy to settle rather than allow precedence of fair use defense here. Given the Judge has seemingly shifted to allow such a defense, and all evidence the Modder knew pirated software might be used was via tainted informants who couldn´t be used in court (once discovered), fair use winning a case would have meant DMCA as a whole would be massively neutered. Dropping one case is irrelevant to Feds/Big Content. I hope the Modder refuses to settle so he can win on fair use (and presumably sue back for reckless prosecution... he doesn´t seem to be getting rich of this, so he could probably use the money)
I'm not sure if he should go THAT far. Though it would be HELLA SWEET if he won.
Yeah, I HOPE he goes that far, but most people would be scared of possibly losing and would settle.
I mentioned reckless prosecution suit because it`s the only reason a normal dude would consider not settling. And like I said, losing one case because of prosecution tactics irrelevant to DMCA itself is much worse than dealing with fair use (for Feds/BigContent/etc) so they´d likely even be willing to include money in their settlement. IF they´re not too arrogant... ;-)
It`s so funny that BigContent acts like all this is needed... When everybody knows exactly how non-DMCA protected encryption regimes work... Normal computers, VCRs, cassette tapes, etc. You know that everybody working in BigContent has copied a cassette tape/video tape in their lifetime - if not, they shouldn´t be working the music biz because they are clearly out of touch. If anything, DMCA only exists to cover up that BigContent can´t make Encryption that actually works. If it worked, they woudn´t need DMCA. That´s the point, when DVD CSS decrypt code can be printed on a t-shirt, but they pretend it´s a natural crime (just look at their propaganda) to run a script. Why aren´t bolt cutters illegal? Clearly usable to commit crime... along with other uses. Yet they´re in every hardware store.
Why isn´t Apple complaining about piracy hurting their profits from iTunes?
Oh yeah, they do what they need to make a profit off it (i.e. consumer convenience), and it doesn´t hurt them, just like cassette copying didn´t cancel other music sales. Not to mention artists who actually take effort to put out albums whose phsyical product is itself desirable to have, i.e. well made materials not just jewel case schlock. Look at BigContent´s propaganda, and they actually try to blame ´piracy´ for lost sales DURING MAJOR RECESSIONS, i.e. when ALL product sales are down. These monopolists literally think they are entired to guaranteed profits even when the entire economy is tanking. Just like propping up incompetent Crypto systems, these guys are incompetent at selling music. They think ensuring the same profit margins on the bazillionth copy of Backstreet Boys is just as important as profits on the first 10,000 albums from indy bands you haven´t heard of. Guess what, music is about cool and new... Backstreet Boys aren´t cool and new, but 1000 indy bands are, and people are happy to support that. That trade-off may not have been equal 30 years ago with analog production and distro, but it works way better when bands already can produce their stuff themselves at home. Go with the flow... Or else, societies capital can be invested in lawyers, cops, and surveillance.
Why aren´t bolt cutters illegal? Clearly usable to commit crime... along with other uses. Yet they´re in every hardware store.
I'm in favor of protecting IP, but this is the most compelling counterargument to DMCA for me.
Once again the government took a good idea and turned it into a circle jerk.
As long as some of the revenue generated flows into the artists pockets and does not line some suits already golden ones, I´m all for protecting IP too. It´s not about protecting IP, it´s about protecting the companies revenue. But instead of the companies coming up with interesting marketing strategies for their products, they´re lobbying the politicians for harsher laws (probably it is less effort and thus cheaper).
Stefan
Exactly. Copyright continues to exist without DMCA. DMCA does not directly deal with copyright at all. It exists to restrict freedom of speech (e.g. analysis of crypto systems, running code which does not duplicate copyright material but merely transforms hashes) if an incompetent encryption system can show it is used to ´protect´ copyrighted material. If I sell a lockbox made of gingerbread cookies and put a copyright cassette tape inside ONE, it now becomes illegal to tell somebody that you can open a hole into such a lockbox by eating it. It´s very obvious that government wants fair use to disappear. Look at wikileaks, amazon is kicking them off by saying they don´t have rights to the material. Good thing all those ´Iranian bomb schematics´ were Israeli-made fakes, otherwise that would be violating Iranian copyright....
Why is the government deputizing private entities to enforce copyright law in the first place (DMCA/Encryption)? Not to mention they are essentially acknowledging that such entities are incompetent at doing the job? Obviusly, within a normal liberal regime, private entities CAN make encrytion systems, but how does this activity become ´holy´? Why is BigContent favored over Copyright holders who DON´T use Encryption? Yet the government apparently doesn´t care unless you use Encryption (NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS).
Why aren´t bolt cutters illegal? Clearly usable to commit crime... along with other uses. Yet they´re in every hardware store.I'm in favor of protecting IP, but this is the most compelling counterargument to DMCA for me.
Once again the government took a good idea and turned it into a circle jerk.
Once again, BT, I know you hate the government and I think there are a thousand ways the above statement is true, but it isn't in this case- if it was, the case wouldn't have been dropped so quickly. The government isn't the bad guy here, Big Content is.
I`m unaware of BT`s other political views, but DMCA and Copyright is an area where there is precious little space betweent the views of those two factors (at least as far as US Gov is concerned - most other governments don´t have DMCA like laws). As I mentioned, it can easily be seen in FAVOR of BigContent/DMCA regime´s position to drop this case as fast as possible rather than allow Fair Use to be recognized as relevant.
I`m unaware of BT`s other political views, but DMCA and Copyright is an area where there is precious little space betweent the views of those two factors (at least as far as US Gov is concerned - most other governments don´t have DMCA like laws). As I mentioned, it can easily be seen in FAVOR of BigContent/DMCA regime´s position to drop this case as fast as possible rather than allow Fair Use to be recognized as relevant.
Hnn. Point.
Chief Technical Officer
|
OOOOOOOUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!! VICTORY!!!!!!Prosecutors dismiss the caseReads like procecutors tried to embelish their case, and got busted.
Not a victory for your side—just a delay for the other side, until they think they have a more winnable case.
Once again, BT, I know you hate the government and I think there are a thousand ways the above statement is true, but it isn't in this case- if it was, the case wouldn't have been dropped so quickly. The government isn't the bad guy here, Big Content is.Why aren´t bolt cutters illegal? Clearly usable to commit crime... along with other uses. Yet they´re in every hardware store.I'm in favor of protecting IP, but this is the most compelling counterargument to DMCA for me.
Once again the government took a good idea and turned it into a circle jerk.
I would also point out that both big corrupt business and big corrupt government can be the problem at the same time.
That is one of my main objections to invasive corrupt government. It makes it more attractive for massive corporate interests to game the system by corrupting the governing process rather than by providing more innovative and competitive products and services.
It's not a binary choice for me of big government or big corporations. Big government picks winners and losers, and big corporations write the rules to enrich themselves through government force and manipulation rather than honest competition. It creates an escalating feed back loop of increasingly corrupt government and business.
Prosecutors dismiss the caseReads like procecutors tried to embelish their case, and got busted.
I though the same thing.
That is one of my main objections to invasive corrupt government. It makes it more attractive for massive corporate interests to game the system by corrupting the governing process rather than by providing more innovative and competitive products and services.
It's not a binary choice for me of big government or big corporations. Big government picks winners and losers, and big corporations write the rules to enrich themselves through government force and manipulation rather than honest competition. It creates an escalating feed back loop of increasingly corrupt government and business.
But too many people nowadays equate "big invasive government" with the very regulations and non-partisan committees that would keep the corporate lobbyists in check.
Businesses of all sizes will always have a corrupting interest in laws & legislators - you can't blame the fox for stealing chickens - it's a survival tactic. But it's up to the citizens to use their votes and angry voices to keep that corruption in check.
Came late to the XBox-modder-case party, but the real problem with the DMCA to my mind is that it delays content businesses and the government from coming up with long-term sustainable digital content solutions. U.S. copyright law as written is completely antiquated and wholly-analog - no media company could ever hope to track down and enforce its ownership over all the hydra-like piracy entities online. And even if it could, and had the vast resources to spare, only diplomatic treaties offer hope for foreign enforcement, and those are hit-or-miss.
The system is fundamentally flawed, and we'll see lots more saber-rattling cases like this guy's (or the torrent-sites that got shut down) before there's a hard-press to a better idea.
Non partisan committees? Do you seriously believe that??
Non partisan committees? Do you seriously believe that??
Depends on what you mean by non-partisan. Since regulations are generally written by executive branch career bureaucrats, there's a lot of insulation from Republican/Democrat partisanship. Plus, they have to be published for public review and comment before they are finalized.
That said, I'd be wary of the non-partisan claim as well because the federal government tends to be more pro-business, particularly big business, and subject to its influences than not. Even so, citizen groups do score more victories with government regulations than they do directly pitted against big corporations, so I know on which side of that divide I stand.
It just bothers me that once you purchase something, you don't actually own it. They can still tell you what to do with it and how.
I concur, and this applies to a lot of items we purchase.
It just bothers me that once you purchase something, you don't actually own it. They can still tell you what to do with it and how.
The same applies not just to the things we buy, but to our own bodies as well, rendering the concept of self-ownership a pipe dream.
It just bothers me that once you purchase something, you don't actually own it. They can still tell you what to do with it and how.The same applies not just to the things we buy, but to our own bodies as well, rendering the concept of self-ownership a pipe dream.
Huh?!? Please explain.
Huh?!? Please explain.
Huh?!? Please explain.Reproductive rights (until recently).
Physician-assisted suicide.
Use of marijuana.
Etc.
Ah. I see now.
Ah. I see now.Huh?!? Please explain.Reproductive rights (until recently).
Physician-assisted suicide.
Use of marijuana.
Etc.
If we own ourselves we should be able to decide how (or if) we risk harm to ourselves.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson
|
|
I concur, and this applies to a lot of items we purchase.It just bothers me that once you purchase something, you don't actually own it. They can still tell you what to do with it and how.
This is my beef with property taxes. You really don't own your property, as, if you don't give the government its annuity, they take it from you. So, in effect, you're renting your "property" from the government.
I also dislike that the government appraises the "value" of property to set the tax rates. They almost never go down. I'm sure some of this had an effect on the housing cost bubble, not nearly as much as market speculation, but an effect. Not to mention it is a conflict of interest issue, as the government is not in a position to be truly objective about assessing property values. I suspect they always err on the side of more money for their coffers.
Then you get into situations like the one our previous mayor was involved with. Everyone's property in his neighborhood was appraised at a higher value (thus assessed a higher tax rate) except his home, which was devalued.
I concur, and this applies to a lot of items we purchase.It just bothers me that once you purchase something, you don't actually own it. They can still tell you what to do with it and how.
This is my beef with property taxes. You really don't own your property, as, if you don't give the government its annuity, they take it from you. So, in effect, you're renting your "property" from the government.
I also dislike that the government appraises the "value" of property to set the tax rates. They almost never go down. I'm sure some of this had an effect on the housing cost bubble, not nearly as much as market speculation, but an effect. Not to mention it is a conflict of interest issue, as the government is not in a position to be truly objective about assessing property values. I suspect they always err on the side of more money for their coffers.
Then you get into situations like the one our previous mayor was involved with. Everyone's property in his neighborhood was appraised at a higher value (thus assessed a higher tax rate) except his home, which was devalued.
Thus we run into the contrast with property and income. Income tax is the road to serfdom. Property and estate taxes for farmers and ranchers aren't far behind.
Are you from Houston, TX? Texas could really use more taxes - I have/had friends there, and the social system & infrastructure seriously needs the money. That's really the deal with all taxes - real property, income, "vice taxes", etc. - the gov't needs money for common purpose things like roads, schools, bridges, police & fire departments, and water & sewer systems. You know, all those conveniences of modern American living that you don't want to lose in favor of keeping a little more money in your pocket.
The fire department example shows what can happen - if you don´t pay the infrastructure by taxes, you have to pay it directly, or suffer the consequences. (Nevertheless, the fire example is nothing short of atrocious - I would sue the fire department for failure to render assistance in the least.) Want a road to your house? Have fun building it, or paying some company to do so. Public schooling? Well, if you can´t afford to pay for it, your kids are out of luck and will get no education, and most probably no job. Water? Build a cistern, and dig a hole for the waste. Police? Well I guess you have to pay for that, but if you can afford only minimum payment, you will get only minimum service.