In case you needed a reminder...you don't own your hardware.
You own your hardware. You can paint it pink, put 10 million volts through it, pull the chips out and mail them to your aunt Edna.
However, the code on the chips, its interfaces, etc. is the intellectual property of whichever company made the thing.
If someone comes along and copies most of it, changing some to do whatever additional feature and then sell that modification, they are selling a [modified] copy of someone else's intellectual property.
Doing whatever you like to your own hardware is one thing - and totally legal. Duplicating someone else's intellectual property, changing a bit and then selling it as your own is something else - and illegal.
Where it hits the user is that they're buying something that was illegal to produce and sell in the first place. If they had a mod chip that didn't impinge on any rights, you could pull out the old chip and stick the new one in freely and there's nothing anyone can do - just like no one will complain if you put Hello Kitty stickers and blue LEDs all over your case as they don't involve reselling anyone else's rights.
They were not convicted of copyright infringement, so your comment is -1, offtopic. They were convicted of selling devices that circumvented security on a piece of hardware *you* (the user) purchased.
Note the definition of piracy on the 0wn3d site: Piracy is the unauthorized, willful reproduction or distribution of copyrighted material, such as software, movies, music, and games.
Then note the provided definition of Mod chips: Mod chips illegally circumvent built-in security protections and allow individuals to play pirated games on game consoles, such as the Microsoft Xbox and the Sony Playstation2.
Tell me, where do these two intersect? They do not. Basically, we are being told we cannot modify the hardware we purchased in an otherwise legal manner (no copyright violations!), simply if it bypasses security. That is what krazy8 was convicted of doing.
The original assessment is right: we have no rights to the goods we purchase, other than those provided by the corporation which produces those goods.
The Intellectual property he was talking about was the process you use to protect the game. Basically the IP that was copied in this case was the lock and not the stuff behind the door.
Gah, the lock wasn't "copied", it was picked. Provided that no copied code exists in these modchips (I don't know if that's true) (incidentally, that wouldn't be stealing IP (in the patent sense), that would be breaking copyright law), there is NO piracy going on here! The illegal act being performed was that of breaking the DMCA rules for copy protection devices (codes which are likely unconstitutational... 'course, I'm Canadian, so what do I care?;)
IP theft would exist if someone created their own copy protection device which used the mechanisms in the X-Box which, presumably, are under patent protection.
Hmm... and it seems the grandparent was correct, sort of. The "lock" was copied, in that these modchips had a BIOS on them which was copyrighted. In this case, the guy got what he deserved... the BIOS was copyrighted, he was selling copyrighted material illegally. Now, if these were blank, flashable devices, and the user had to find the BIOS and write it him/herself, then I'd have a problem with this.
You are correct, mod chips and copyright law do not intersect. Unfortunately, some people at the Department of Justice don't see it that way. It's interesting that you quote everything but:
David Rocci, a.k.a "krazy8," pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on December 19, 2002, to conspiring with others to violate federal copyright laws by illegally importing, marketing, and selling modification, or "mod," chips.
Looks like DMCA is an extention to copyright laws and that the "anti-circumvention" clause does indeed mean that you don't own your hardware and that you can't help others modify their own hardware, even without charge. They face up to half a fucking million dolars fines for each count and five years in jail.
This is some of the worst news I've had about my country in a long time. It won't be long before you have to have a government license to own a computer or program one. As your computer is your press, we can see that we no longer have freedom of press. I'm holding on to my non gimped hardware like it's the last free press on earth.
Owning your hardware. (Score:3, Interesting)
You own your hardware. You can paint it pink, put 10 million volts through it, pull the chips out and mail them to your aunt Edna.
However, the code on the chips, its interfaces, etc. is the intellectual property of whichever company made the thing.
If someone comes along and copies most of it, changing some to do whatever additional feature and then sell that modification, they are selling a [modified] copy of someone else's intellectual property.
Doing whatever you like to your own hardware is one thing - and totally legal. Duplicating someone else's intellectual property, changing a bit and then selling it as your own is something else - and illegal.
Where it hits the user is that they're buying something that was illegal to produce and sell in the first place. If they had a mod chip that didn't impinge on any rights, you could pull out the old chip and stick the new one in freely and there's nothing anyone can do - just like no one will complain if you put Hello Kitty stickers and blue LEDs all over your case as they don't involve reselling anyone else's rights.
-1 Offtopic (Score:5, Insightful)
Note the definition of piracy on the 0wn3d site: Piracy is the unauthorized, willful reproduction or distribution of copyrighted material, such as software, movies, music, and games.
Then note the provided definition of Mod chips:
Mod chips illegally circumvent built-in security protections and allow individuals to play pirated games on game consoles, such as the Microsoft Xbox and the Sony Playstation2.
Tell me, where do these two intersect? They do not. Basically, we are being told we cannot modify the hardware we purchased in an otherwise legal manner (no copyright violations!), simply if it bypasses security. That is what krazy8 was convicted of doing.
The original assessment is right: we have no rights to the goods we purchase, other than those provided by the corporation which produces those goods.
Re:-1 Offtopic (Score:2)
Re:-1 Offtopic (Score:2)
IP theft would exist if someone created their own copy protection device which used the mechanisms in the X-Box which, presumably, are under patent protection.
Correction... (Score:2)
stupid troll. (Score:1, Flamebait)
David Rocci, a.k.a "krazy8," pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on December 19, 2002, to conspiring with others to violate federal copyright laws by illegally importing, marketing, and selling modification, or "mod," chips.
Looks like DMCA is an extention to copyright laws and that the "anti-circumvention" clause does indeed mean that you don't own your hardware and that you can't help others modify their own hardware, even without charge. They face up to half a fucking million dolars fines for each count and five years in jail.
This is some of the worst news I've had about my country in a long time. It won't be long before you have to have a government license to own a computer or program one. As your computer is your press, we can see that we no longer have freedom of press. I'm holding on to my non gimped hardware like it's the last free press on earth.
Re:-1 Offtopic (Score:2)
Yes, he was. Read the site, it says he plead guilty to it.
Tell me, where do these two intersect?
They intersect in the copyright law of the US. The DMCA was an amendment to the US copyright code. The DMCA outlaws circumvention devices.