Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Man Jailed for Selling Modchips 495

Posted by CmdrTaco from the modded-xboxes-are-better dept.
JoeCotellese writes "The Register is reporting that the man accused of selling Mod chips for the X-Box was sentenced to five months imprisonment and a $28,500 fine." Yet another sad abuse of the DMCA.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Jailed for Selling Modchips More

Man Jailed for Selling Modchips

Comments Filter:
  • This is an outrage! I mean, I have a chipped XBox here in the UK, and I use it to run XBox media player, and play a few (legitimate) games I have. At some point in the future, I will be running linux on it as well, as I can sit in bed and browse the web. Not as bad as it sounds :) I think DCMA is disgusting, it gives corporations the rights that they don't need!
    • That isnt the issue,

      he may not be infringing on copyrights, but (correct me if im wrong, im no expert on DCMA) the issue is that the mod chips circumvent copy protection on the x-box, which is illegal.

      • Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by icemind ( 191210 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:18AM (#5692962)
        Not true. The issue is the BIOS on these chips which is a hacked version of the MS one, that's what's illegal about it. You can legally hack and reverse engineer the XBox as much as you like unless I'm mistaken. The chip he was selling, Enigmah, came with the hacked BIOS preinstalled and was therefore illegal. Had he been selling one of these blank mod chips (which you then add a BIOS to yourself) I doubt they'd have had such a strong legal case against him.
      • It probably has more to do with it being marketed as circumvention devices. The chips have enough other legitimate uses (e.g. running non-MS-licensed software, such as that OS with the penguins) that it would be difficult to convincingly argue that circumvention is their actual purpose. But if they're sold as "This chip lets you run pirate warez" then one orf 1201(B)'s rules gets triggered.

        And it probably doesn't help that, in addition to the DMCA entanglements, traditional copyright (in the pre-1990s-n

      • Legitimate use of DMCA (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
        the issue is that the mod chips circumvent copy protection on the x-box, which is illegal.

        I'm fairly sure that that's correct. Some people are claiming that the issue is the inclusion of a BIOS (and hence copyright infringement), but I'm quite certain that this is not the case. There are existing copyright laws to cover this, and not only is the DMCA not required to prosecute someone infringing copyright, it really doesn't *cover* it. The DMCA specifically goes after people screwing with copy protectio

    • Re:Mod Chips != copyright infringement? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:56AM (#5692835) Homepage
      So what you are saying is that you bought a chip for a of hardware you paid for and own so you could use it how you wanted? Next you will be telling me that you have a video recorder and record whatever you want off TV. Or god forbid prehaps even a computer that you can do whatever you want on...

      Yes it is a stupid law and deserves to crash and burn

      Rus
    • Actually, you are probably wrong. The modchip you have installed has a copyrighted bios image on it. Sure, its been modified by the xboxhackers out there, but it still uses code from the xbox development kit, which is copyright microsoft.

      So mabey you don't copy games, but your chip still infringes copyright.

      The exception to this is the new cromwell bios, which is for running linux, and has been developed from scratch, not using the XDK, but sorry, that bios won't run your media player, or legit games.
  • How an abuse? Seems to me that here the DCMA has been applied in the normal way.

    The DCMA may be a pain in the arse, but the problem is things like this are not abuses of it - they are legitamate uses.

    The DCMA is gay, but this is not an abuse of it.

  • Cripes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frogking ( 126462 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:47AM (#5692779) Homepage
    It's getting to the point where selling drugs is less of a risk! Not that I would, but I suppose one could always market LSD as a modchip for your brain...
    • Not that I would, but I suppose one could always market LSD as a modchip for your brain...

      Wasn't that the point of Neuromancer? [amazon.com]
    • Yeah, really.. It's like I went to bed one night, and woke up the next morning, and just touching my computer had suddenly became illegal. I turned on my monitors, and hit alt-tab to switch to my e-mail program to check my mail (I happen to be running Linux, which is now illegal because it violates the DMCA), and all of a sudden FBI agents crashed throw my window and came in through my door, handcuffed me and hauled me directly to prison and took all the money out of my bank account and took all physical p
  • Perhaps instead of buying protection in prison with the traditional box of cigarettes he can just give inmates warez'ed copies of Windows Server 2003 [slashdot.org] instead.

  • hardware not license (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BobRooney ( 602821 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:50AM (#5692801) Homepage
    When you buy an Xbox you buy hardware. Circuit boards, microchips, a hard drive, a GPU, a CPU, RAM. You are not buying the same sort of thing when you buy software, where you are technically buying a license, not a disk with software on it.

    You should be able to modify any equipment you own without fear of prosecution because the effect of that modification could possibly, in certain specific circumstances, violate copyright laws.

    It's like arresting someone for putting a better engine in their car becuase "They might decide to speed", or worse, arresting the person who sold the performace parts.

    • Re:hardware not license (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angry White Guy ( 521337 ) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:59AM (#5692854)
      The console market is blurring the lines between property and licensing. Welcome to serfdom. You are now working for the Baron, living on the Baron's land.

      Have a nice life!
    • I was also reminded of the car analogy, but as far as i know the car industry without actually encouraging this kind of thing does not chase after people who chip their cars. It voids your warranty on the car sure, but it is your car so whatever you do is fine.

    • Re:hardware not license (Score:3, Informative)

      by goldcd ( 587052 )
      The problem with most mod-chips is that they usually contain MS's copyrighted code - and therefore violate copyright law pretty much wherever they're sold. Only way around this currently is to sell them blank with the capability for the end user to load on whatever code we wants using his computer (e.g. Xecuter Pro) or sell them with an Open source Bios installed (e.g. Cromwell). The problem with the later is that it's currently pretty fiddly to swap it for the one you most probably want on your mod chip.

      • The DMCA is so blunt, it could still be used in that case, because the modchip seller could be charged as the "hyperlink" assisting in the copyright infrigement.

        Same way the wake student at princeton is getting charged for providing the service that allows people to pirate, even if there are good things involved, same with modchips, the fact is they "can" be used to pirate and the DMCA protects that.

        This shows how bad the law is and that it should be fought.

    • Re:hardware not license (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:20AM (#5692973) Journal
      *sigh*

      Where are the days of, say, the Commodore 64? That thing came with the freakin' schematics in the back of the manual, practically begging you to take a soldering iron to it and modify it in interesting ways.
    • Exactly right. Manufacturers all sell cars that are capable of driving faster (much faster usually) than 100KM/Hour (65MPH). Nearly every country (Germanys fine autobahns excepted) have a speed limit of ~100KM/hour. This is analogous to saying these companies are aiding and abetting speeders. They should be held responsible for all violations of the speed limit because they made a machine capable of violating this limit.

      Just because a mod could be used to violate copyright does not mean it will. You can be

  • This isn't abuse of the DMCA... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:50AM (#5692802)
    because the DMCA is already abusive...it's just being applied normally. Best thing is to repeal that abomination.

  • Why did he plead guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mocm ( 141920 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:51AM (#5692805)
    An X-Box mod chip is not an illegal copyright circumvention devices. It's an access restriction circumvention device. It gives you access to your X-Box hardware. What you do after that is your responsibility not the vendor's of the chip.
    He must have had a bad lawyer. He could only be guilty if he included part of MS X-Box ROM on the chip. That would have been a copyright violation.
    There is no DMCA violation here.

    • Re:Why did he plead guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:00AM (#5692857)
      He must have had a bad lawyer.

      Basically, he had less money so he lost. Trials involving corporations have absolutely nothing to do with justice. It is purely down to who has the most money. He could have pled innocent and suffered long drawn out trial which run him into $1000's debt to his lawyer. Microsoft, et al would use stalling tactics to see that this happens and will use every trick in the book to delay proceedings, etc. In most cases they win and the little guy is now totally fucked for the rest of his life because of legal costs - I guess he decided it wasn't worth the risk of fighting.
    • That's what I was wondering. Why did he plead guilty? $$ probably. Getting sued or arrested for this type of stuff is becoming more like extortion lately. I would have liked to see this one play out in the courts. People simply cannot afford the battle, so they cave in. It's not against the law to make and sell bullets, so why the hell would it be to make a mod chip?
      • Getting sued or arrested for this type of stuff is becoming more like extortion lately.

        Ever heard of Miranda rights?

        "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you"

        In criminal cases, money is not a problem. It's in civil cases where you have to empty your wallet.

        • I don't know about where you are but here, unless you make less than $11K a year you are not entitled to an attorney paid by legal-aid. You are determined to be able to afford one (and its my opinion that those bureaucrats were on crack...I make a LOT more than 11K a year and I couldn't afford an attorney at 200$/hour to defend me from a criminal charge...)

  • The article went on to state... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:51AM (#5692806) Homepage Journal
    That every retailer in the USA was to be jailed for selling "007: Agent Under Fire"

  • Old burner for sale (Score:3, Funny)

    by FatalTourist ( 633757 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:51AM (#5692807) Homepage
    I need to sell this old 12x CD burner. It tears right through Safe Disc. So let's see, $15 is a fair price.
    $15 + $7 (UPS Ground) + $28500 (DMCA fine)

    Ok, any takers?

  • USA government is just a tool for big business (Score:3, Insightful)

    by monkeyserver.com ( 311067 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:51AM (#5692811) Homepage Journal
    Thanks george w. I used to think this country served the ppl, now I realise that all it does is serve to perpetuate big business and the top .01% of the population.

    I just heard news of how soldiers took one of saddam's 7 palaces, and how extravagent it is. All marble floors and 18k gold faucets (which isn't too expensive, gold is cheap over there). They were saying how horrible it is that ppl are starving and the ruling class lives in such luxury. How is this that different from the US? We might not be killing as many of our citizens, but apparently we'll use our gestapo to throw them in jail and take their money if they tinker with their own personal property, or if they interfere with some companies defunct business plan.

    Last I checked, I own my PS2, if want to throw it off my balcony, I can. If I want to add microchips, I can. it's mine, I bought it, I don't remember sony lending it to me....

    • Re:USA government is just a tool for big business (Score:5, Informative)

      by kableh ( 155146 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:00AM (#5692858) Homepage
      I agree with all your other points, and believe me, I loathe Dubya as much as you most likely, but the DMCA passed under Clinton's watch, so...

      Then again, the economy wasn't in the shitter back then, so who really gave a rat's ass? *looks down at his DeCSS shirt*

      • the DMCA passed under Clinton's watch

        Clinton still could not have prevented the DMCA from becoming law because it passed both houses by "unanimous consent", that is, a voice vote. A voice vote implies at least 80.1 percent support for a bill (20 percent of a house can force a full roll-call vote in that house); only 66.7 percent is needed to override the President's veto.

  • Abuse of the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by InfinityWpi ( 175421 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:54AM (#5692817)
    No... this is pretty much what the DMCA was made to do. Modchips are, technically, illegal. You buy an X-Box, and somewhere in there is an agreement that you won't modify it (ever read all the fine print in the manual and other litereature in those boxes?). The guy did something that was illegal, he got arrested. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't mean it's an abuse of the law.
    • Modchips are, technically, illegal.

      I must say, I get tired of saying this. "They are not." And I'm not even relying on moral arguments about "you own the hardware" or unproven legal arguments about "they imposed the conditions after the sale." There are no conditions. Modchips are not illegal.

      You buy an X-Box, and somewhere in there is an agreement that you won't modify it (ever read all the fine print in the manual and other litereature in those boxes?).

      Yes, I have. And no, it doesn't say so.
    • They can write whatever they like in the EULA that doesn't make it law. There are laws that protect consumers against onerous terms and conditions i.e. a manufacturer cna write what they like about limited liability but state laws will overrule this every time.

  • Hopefully. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:55AM (#5692829) Homepage Journal

    Hopefully the result of this is not less modchips sold, rather less XBoxes sold as people become aware of their rights being chipped (no pun) away.
  • The general public needs to be awakened to the ridiculous powers that the DMCA grants mega-corporations. Before, the corporations just had money, which was enough to easily win the trivial cases and was great a tool for influence. But now, with the DMCA they harbor actual power, both literal and politically. When you place this much power into the hands of entities that exist for the sole purpose of making ever-more mounds of cash, you have a serious problem.

    It sucks to know that the people we voted into

  • I psychically predict (Score:2, Insightful)

    by goldcd ( 587052 )
    this will turn into a "DMCA is BAD" thread. We all know it was a bad idea and we all know you don't like having it blah blah blah - maybe this time you'll actually do something about it? No? OK, as you were with your cliched responses.
    If you get writers block might I also suggest you mention the patriot act, deCSS, RIAA and maybe draw a comparison to nazis/al-quaeda. In you're a non-American you can just post a gloat and try to ignore the similar European law worming it's way through the system.
  • I worked for a now defunct game rental/console&games reseller about 6 years ago. They imported modchips for the original Playstation so it could play Japanese and PAL games. They imported them as "vaccuum tubes".

    I wanted to point out that this is the reason they are out of business, as this Canadian company, was sued by Sony for "fraud and illegal importation" - so this kind of stuff was happening before the "popularity of blaming it on the DMCA". Not that I'm for the DMCA or for stopping the importat

  • rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EZmagz ( 538905 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:57AM (#5692841) Homepage
    ...was sentenced to five months imprisonment and a $28,500 fine

    A man gets covicted of driving while drunk, and only gets an overnight in jail and has to pay to go to A.A. as his sentence. This man could have easily killed a family sharing the road with him. He gets off easier than a man selling mod chips.

    Another man beats another man outside of a bar with a beer bottle, possibly killing the victim. The attacker gets thrown in jail for 3 months for assult and told not to do it again. He gets off easier than a man selling mod chips.

    Honestly, where's the danger here? Who's the victim? Microsoft, because they *might* lose money to a worldwide group of video game pirates? Wrong. There's no mastermind behind piracy, just a few kids here or there (and they're an EXTREMELY small majority of the video game-playing public, I might add) who MIGHT want to play a backed up game. Or maybe they just want to dick around and put linux on their XBox. Who cares.

    Point is, I have a hard time beliveing MS is losing sleep over this stuff, when there's people being thrown in jail for an unfair amount of time.

  • I'm pretty far to the right politically (okay, I admit it, I'm *really* far to the right) but even I think this is overly harsh. I know cops who have locked up drug dealers and even they didn't get slapped this hard.

  • Hang on a second... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @08:57AM (#5692847) Journal
    While I support the idea that people should have the right to do what they want with equipment they own, this guy made a living selling the copyrighted work of others... namely the programing in those chips (ie, the original MS BIOS which has been modified).

    Now, if he wanted to rewrite the bios, fine... but he didn't. He copied the MS Bios code, modified it, and sold it. It would be no different if I bought myself a copy of MS Windows, made some modifications to it, burned it to CD, and started selling it as my own.

    -S
    • Isn't that copyright infrigement? [copyright.gov]

      Why do we need the DMCA again? Oh yes, to assert our God Given Right to own ideas forever.

    • Re:Hang on a second... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by hklingon ( 109185 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:16AM (#5692951) Homepage
      Licensing can be a double edged sword. Courts have shown that Licenses are inalienable rights to works.* So... if you're buying one of these things on the condition that you own an X-Box, you are ALREADY licnesed for the use of it. Since you ALREADY have the unmodified bios in your XBOX, and you can only use one at a time, he isn't technically changing anything about the nature of who has what code.

      *By inalienable, I mean outside forces can't destroy your license [fire, theft, etc]. I think the specific case was an office building burned down taking the paper license with it, but the company still had proof they bought it. Some company wanted them to re-license the software, but the courts ruled they didn't have to because it was a right-of use, largely intellectual work in nature.
    • "He copied the MS Bios code, modified it, and sold it."

      Fair enough, but how is that a criminal act exactly? Why is this guy in jail? He is certainly infringing on intellectual property rights and can be sued for damages in CIVIL courts. I'm not entirely sure this is a criminal activity at all. Should he have to pay damages to MS? Certainly, but he should not be fined nor should he be in jail.
  • The first rule of enforcing laws where making money is attached, "Make examples out of people, real bad examples to scare the rest of them". This is purely a "make an example out of someone" excercise for the DMCA, business as usual.

  • It is sad, but what can you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by peerogue ( 623472 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:01AM (#5692865)
    This is sad.

    I have a friend of mine who, way back in 1991, had dissecated his HP calculator (HP-48S). He had found a way (by chance) to read memory through one of the HP-48S functions, and, knowing the chip used, was able to disassemble the ROM of the calculator.

    This allowed him to create new functions like ".." to move up the directory hierarchy of the calcultor, or even setup a password-protected login. Cool nerd things.

    Anyway, he published his book in France. A few weeks later, he was contacted by HP. They wanted to know how he got those information. He told them and was no further bothered.

    Now imagine it would have been in the USA with a DMCA law. This kind of reverse engineering and publishing could have been sanctionned, despite the fact that it did not harm HP a bit, nor did it reveal trade secrets. It merely gave a way for geeks to use the HP-48S in cool new ways.

    Back to the topic, I would say that this case shows us how a law can be used against the people that elected their representatives, who in turn voted such a law. Sometehing did not get right here.

    The law is the law, it must be applied. At the same time, people must realize that this law is a bad one, that it gives too much power to companies, and that it prevents "fair use".

    Selling mod chips is not an activity I would blame. It does not hurt my values, nobody is hurt in the process, and people modify hardware they bought. Yet it is unlawful. If it chokes you as well, it means we both agree the law needs to be changed.

    If you don't like that, don't buy this company's hardware. And write to your representative to have the law revisited.

  • Why the DMCA licks it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by este ( 600616 ) <este@s[ ]end.net ['ubt' in gap]> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:03AM (#5692873) Homepage Journal
    I read -alot- of postsalong the lines of "What's the big deal? If it's illegal, it's wrong!"

    Bullshit.

    It was once illegal for non-white non-male U.S. citizens to vote, but that doesn't mean it would have been wrong for then to do so, nor is it now. Yes - some courts interpret the DMCA in such a way that things like modding your own hardware are copyright circumvention and are therefore, under the Act, illegal.

    But there's more depth to this issue.

    1) In my opinion, mostly, I can do whatever I want to what I own. I could put my Xbox in a washing machine, throw it off a cliff, or fill it with Jagermeister. It's mine.

    2) Just because an object has the potential to violate a law does not automatically mean it does. If I work at a Wal-mart, and sell you a baseball bat, and you crack someone over the head with it, I'm not going to be charged with homicide. That's the end-user's fate.

    3) Are a good deal of mod chips used for playing illegally copied materials? You bet. But that's not all you can use them for. Just because hareware has capabilities that are illegal (see #2), doesn't mean that's what it'll be used for, nor can it belabled a "circumvention device". I mean, if you're going to slap that label on, why would no the Xbox itself be a part of that group too? You need the machine as much as the chip to play a pirated game.

    The point is, there simply exists too much ambiguity to assuredly charge that mod chips and the like are outright "circumvention materials". And as such, one who sells them a) should not be held responsible for selling such a product, and b) should not be held responsible for it's eventual use. Exploitation of legal ambiguity? Maybe. But that's what makes America great ;-)
    • 1) In my opinion, mostly, I can do whatever I want to what I own. I could put my Xbox in a washing machine, throw it off a cliff, or fill it with Jagermeister. It's mine.

      are you a bloody savage? How dare you waste perfectly good nectar of the gods(otherwise known as Jagermeister) inside an Xbox!!!

      SHAME ON YOU!
    • I agree with most of you post, but your analogy is a bit weak. A baseball bat is specifically designed to play baseball, it just happens to be used by hired goons to bash some heads, knees, etc. Let's say 98% of all baseball bats are used for completely legit purpose of playing baseball and 2% for said bashing. This is not enough to make the bat illegal.

      Now, to continue with the numbers from above. A mod chip can be used for completely legit uses, like Linux dev kit. However, the primary purpose is for pir
    • Way to try to morally equate the DMCA to institutional discrimination. You have successfully discredited your entire argument, but I'll refute it anyway.

      1) I don't think Microsoft cares what you do with your machine as long as it's not rigged to cut into their profits. I don't care how many people who claim to use mod chips for reasons other than playing games they haven't paid for, most of them are dishonest.

      2) Combined with the nature and content of this person's website, the intend of his actions

      • > 1) I don't think Microsoft cares what you do with your machine
        > as long as it's not rigged to cut into their profits.

        So, by your logic, if i purchase an xbox with the preintent of never ever turning it on and/or buying games, its perfectly OK to throw me in jail because i am cutting into M$'s profits?

        I thought if I sold you a piece of hardware, you owned it.

        So now i can sell you a piece of hardware, with the claim i need to make alot more money off of it than whatever we aggree is the sale price

  • Who abused what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:04AM (#5692880) Journal
    The site was isonews. Dedicated to posting .nfos and tracking all the releases in the warez scene. While they didnt link to downloads, or allow site advertising in the forums, the forums were full of people talking about how to copy this or play that on whichever console.

    The site was not about 'backups', it was not about linux, it was not about fair use. It was about piracy.

    And he sold Xbox modchips. He couldnt sit and yammer in court about fair use rights or running linux legally. He sold them for a specific purpose - playing illegal copies.

    You can also make something of the fact that he was convicted for selling the 1st gen modchip Enigmah. Basically all xbox mods are bios hacks/replacements. The enigmah had a hacked version of the xbox bios.

    Newer mods are basically blank flashroms. (Homebrew mods are blank flashroms) I don't see how you could be convicted selling those, unless you specifically make a point of saying the device is for playing pirated software.

    I'm all against the government abusing its power.. Yeah yeah. But this guy abused his (and by extension everyone elses) "fair use" rights.

    Screw him. He and people like him are the reason the DMCA passed in the first place.

    • Re:Who abused what? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Havokmon ( 89874 ) <rick@NospAm.havokmon.com> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @10:03AM (#5693219) Homepage Journal
      I'm all against the government abusing its power.. Yeah yeah. But this guy abused his (and by extension everyone elses) "fair use" rights.
      Screw him. He and people like him are the reason the DMCA passed in the first place.

      I'm with you on him 'doing wrong' and being punished for it, but prosecuting him under the DMCA fucked us all. Now there's a documented case of manufacturer vs. distributor of 'hardware modification' equipment, and the manufacturer winning outright.

      I'm starting to fear for my new arcade hobby. What if I get a JAMMA adapter [dameon.net] that allows my JAMMA cabinet to play Galaga [klov.com]? Is Namco going to come after me?

      Or better, what If I wanted to hook my PC to my JAMMA cabinet with a J-PAC [ultimarc.com]? Sure, a lot of people use it to play MAME (which is illegal if you don't own the board), but you're not restricted to MAME games. Put on a trackball, and it could be a 'web browser arcade cabinet'.

  • The Iraqi's must be so excited! (Score:3, Funny)

    by freedommatters ( 664657 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:09AM (#5692918)

    When the Iraqis realise what Bush means by freedom they'll wonder what all the talk of liberation was about!

    All I want for Christmas is my Constitutional Rights [cafeshops.com]

  • The purpose of jails (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Obasan ( 28761 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:12AM (#5692923)
    Many of the threads on this story - I suspect, will follow one of a few different aspects of this case. Whether this fellow "Deserved" what happened because what he was doing was allowing the illegal copying of copyprotected works. Whether or not "tool" providers should be prosecuted rather than those actually circumventing copy protections and breaking copyright law, and general challenges to the legitimacy of the DMCA.

    I'd like to bring up another thread - the appropriate use of prisons in our society. It has come to pass that the answer to all criminal activities is "send them to prison". Does this make sense for non-violent crimes such as this? This guy didn't rob a liquor store, he didn't point a gun, knife or other weapon at anyone. He didn't threaten anyone. What, exactly, is the point of sending someone like this to jail?

    I'm not going to argue whether he deserves punishment or not - I'm sure that will be handled in a lot of other threads. But if we are going to punish these kinds of crimes - what punishment should be used? Having a prison population is a huge burden on society, and its reformative powers are pretty dubious at best. Are we not better off assigning community service hours or similar types of punishments for these kinds of crimes?

    Thoughts?
    Obasan

    • Re:The purpose of jails (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      Does this make sense for non-violent crimes such as this?

      Yes and no. The original purpose of jails might have been to remove dangerous people from society in order to make societ safer, but now part of the purpose is to hurt people. This punitive measure is meant to be a deterrent. After all, you don't want to go to jail, right? So you'll obey the law, out of fear.

      Having a prison population is a huge burden on society, and its reformative powers are pretty dubious at best.

      Yeah, jailing has some ma

      • The original purpose of prisons, in English common law at least, was to hold people being sent off to the Penal Colonies, such as Austrailia, whilst they waited for a ship. It all went down hill from there.

        In ye olden days, if you were judged unfit for society, you were executed. Otherwise, you took your lashes, or your public humiliation in the stocks, or whatever, and went on with your life.

        Actually, the idea of 'incarceration as punishment' was mainly, I believe, saved for the nobility; they couldn

    • Re:The purpose of jails (Score:4, Interesting)

      by awol ( 98751 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @10:15AM (#5693288) Journal

      I'd like to bring up another thread - the appropriate use of prisons in our society.

      Thank you. But you have only identified half the problem. The real issue is the criminalisation of civil wrongs. It is _extremely_ distressing the extent to which wrongs, and I too choose not to decide if what this guy dud was actually wrong, of a commercial nature are being treated as criminal acts. The issue of the correct form of punishment is somewhat late after the fact.

      Even up until the 18th and 19th century there was imprisonment for debt, a truly nefarious practice whereby debtors were sent to gaol fro their inability to pay debts, the absurdity of this in that being in gaol robbed most of them of their capacity to repay the debt first incurred eventually lead to statutory prohibition on IFD. Have a look at any UK derived commonwealth (including most all of the US states) and you will find such a prohibition. The trend we are now observing with the DMCA etc is just wrong, eventually (and if we actually get off our asses, me included, it might be sooner) this will be fixed, but it's going to be later rather than sooner.

    • Correction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by infernalC ( 51228 )
      The purpose of 'jails' is to sustain the custody of individuals who are charged with crimes or are material witnesses to crimes. The purposes of 'prisons' are to prevent convicted criminals from harming society through isolation, to provide a mechanism by which they may be 'corrected', and to provide a strong deterrent to crime.

      I know you didn't want to go there, but the irony here is that the subject of the incarceration need not be corrected, but the law he violated should be recognized as inconsitent wi

  • DOJ Press Release on isonews.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by ayden ( 126539 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:12AM (#5692924) Homepage Journal
    The DOJ posted their press release [isonews.com] about this case on the seized isonews.com [isonews.com] website.

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Garion911 ( 10618 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:12AM (#5692925) Homepage
    Hardware stores such as Home Depot, Sears, and others were closed permanently today in reaction to a lawsuit brought by Anderson Windows, Pella and other window manufacters.

    A Pella representative stated: "We have asked these stores to stop selling devices that are in violation of the DMCA in relation to our window products. They refused, stating that there are other uses for the devices in question, hence the lawsuit."

    When asked what products and how it was related to the DMCA, they responded: "Windows are digital. They are either open or closed. When closed, they are a security device. The stores were in violation of the DMCA by selling devices called 'hammers' that could easily remove the security of the device."

    (I'll leave the open and shut case jokes as an exercise for the reader..)

  • DMCA *is* Abuse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:19AM (#5692965) Homepage Journal

    The DMCA has just been applied naturally in this case. The problem is not that the DMCA has been absued, but rather that the DMCA is abuse.

    New technology has not been immune to misguided legislation.

    I thought all these issues had been hashed out earlier with regard to crowbars as burglary tools (crowbars aren't illegal, but breaking into a house is, etc.), the VCR case (people are allowed to make copies for private home viewing), headshops (drug paraphenalia is OK, possession of certain drugs is not OK (sorry, bad example)).

    Those earlier legal precedents were seem largely reasonable and it would have been logical if recently-enacted legislation didn't try to use new technology as a tool to fix what is really a social problem. Now that's an inappropriate use of a tool if ever there was!

    Don't prosecute people making or possessing tools or technologies. Instead, prosecute the people that directly use them to genuinely violate a copyright law (say, by selling illicit copies). Equivalently, they should simply install speed governors on automobiles so no one exceeds the posted limit. Removing your speed governor or selling means to defeat a speed governor would be crimes under the DMCA mindset.

  • the rule-of-law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chipwich ( 131556 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:19AM (#5692968)
    The scary thing about this is that US laws are now increasingly oppressive to the point that their enforcement in an arbitrary fashion seriously degrades the fabric of society.

    You can't have a rule-of-law which doesn't apply equally to everyone. I mean, I guess we knew that since well before the OJ trial, but here's a case where a seemingly innocuous crime has unreasonably harsh punishment. Kill a man, get off. Endanger corporate intellectual property, be punished eternally.

    But then, I guess even something as simple as speeding could potentially be applied arbitrarily. But we know that cops would never engage in profiling, right?

    History has shown that *all* governments tend to opress their citizens eventually. The US is about to learn that big-time.

  • Overreaction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Little Dave ( 196090 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:25AM (#5693004) Homepage
    Fair enough, the guy was distributing copyright material. He done bad, he should be slapped on the wrists. But prison? Are American prisons really so spacious that you need to fill them up petty, almost victimless crimes like these?

    Pointless.

    • Re:Overreaction (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dick johnson ( 660154 )
      Actually, if you know anything about the American prison system, he'll spend little - if no time in jail.

      Assuming this is his first criminal offense, he'll likely have to serve as little as 1/5 of his sentence. I worked in a court house in NJ where I saw a women, who was a supervisor for the state's child abuse welfare agency and who had pleaded guilty for beating her 5-year-old son to death with a club, sentenced to seven years in jail.

      She actually served 17 months in jail before being released on parole

    • nope (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ender Ryan ( 79406 )
      Nope, our prisons are pretty damn full. It was just the other day that I saw an article in a newspaper saying that for the first time, we now officially have over 2 Million people in prison in the U.S. That's nearly 1% of the population. While I certainly like and support my country, it needs some serious work in many areas.

  • Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stevenp ( 610846 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:30AM (#5693026)
    This is plain stupid (at least from my European point of view)
    If the law wants to be consistent, then these [lockpicks.com] and these [colt.com] guys should also be arrested as they sell "protection circumventing devices".
    Selling a tool which allows to break the law should not be punished, only breaking the law should be.
  • People don't seem to understand that this is not a Napster issue, where he's creating a means of piracy. Not at all.

    XBOX mod chips contain illegally modified proprietary data. They contain, specifically, a modified XBOX bios. This is roughly the same thing as selling modified copies of windows. Sure, you can do it on your own, and he's not resposnsible for piracy at all. But he distributing hacked versions of the bios, which is strictly not allowed!

  • Clarification (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steronz ( 307926 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @09:40AM (#5693086) Homepage
    The confusion over this issue has been bothering me ever since the story broke several months ago.

    XBOX mod chips ARE NOT ILLEGAL! They never have been! I just bought one last week. The mod chip is nothing more than a regular PC bios chip with some circuitry to override the on-board bios. The bios that I downloaded from IRC and flashed to my mod chip IS illegal. It's just a slightly modified version of the COPYRIGHTED xbox bios. Now, you can argue about the legality of copyright law, but this has nothing to do with the DMCA.

    Moving onto the case in question, this guy was selling mod chips with the modified (illegal) bios already installed. Big mistake. If he had been selling blank modchips like the rest of the world, he would have been fine.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go play my pirated copy of DOA: Beach Volleyball...

  • ...blank CPLDs on a suitable board and let people find the VHDL for themselves on the web? Would that be legal? I think it's the way to go.

  • How Do Modchips Violate Microsoft's Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmarx ( 528279 ) <dmarx@hushm a i l . com> on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @10:08AM (#5693238) Homepage Journal
    How, exactly, are Microsoft's rights violated by someone modding their X-Box to play games that have not yet been, and may never be, released in their country?
    Is Microsoft's right to life being violated? No.
    Is Microsoft's right to liberty being violated? No.
    Is Microsoft's right to property being violated? No.
    So now we must ask why, in the so-called "land of the free", a man must have his life ruined, and spend five months getting his shit packed, for "dareing" to sell devices that allow people to modify hardware that they bought and paid for?!

  • BOYCOTT X-BOX! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dragontooth ( 604494 )

    I cannot believe this is real. I mean really a guy got JAIL TIME and a CRIMINAL RECORD for selling these devices which do not even fall under the DMCA. The mod chips do not let people bypass copywriten materials and now the guy has 5 months in the pokey with a big biker rommate named Florence.

    What THE FUCK is going on here? I am so glad I love in Canada. Is the U.S. really turning into the Orwellian state that it seems to be? I have always considered moving to the States. My wife and I were discussing this

  • Sooner or later the DMCA will creep into other facets of life...

    Cars, light fixtures, etc.

    Why, light bulbs could be CHIPPED to make them fail within a certain time period... Fixtures could REFUSE to light the light if you don't use the light bulb of the manufacturer...

    Your car could refuse to run on anything but GM Gas -tm, or refuse to start unless the tires have the manufacturer's chips in them.

    The potential for abuse is LIMITLESS.

  • This ones a catch 22 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tmortn ( 630092 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2003 @05:52PM (#5697123) Homepage
    He sold a chip with a modified copyrighted BIOS that was only usefull to people who had already bought a fully licensed chip.

    Technically selling a modified copyrighted code is illegal however in this case he wasn't costing M$ any money. Eveyrone he is selling to already paid M$ for a box to use the chip in. Essentially to me he is selling the modifications and the work of installing those modifications. Work he did not M$. He is not cicumventing M$'s money for their material because people already posses it.

    Further more M$'s work is mostly derivative in nature. BIOS systems only have so many ways in which to work and for a piece of equipemt like the X-box there are limited options for how it can be arranged and handled. To me patenting a BIOS is akin to pateting a gear, or cog. I mean ford dosn't hold the keys to combustion engine design. You are perfectly welcome to buy a ford block and modify it and re-sell it. this is the stock and trade kind of sale for most mod shops. THis is NO different than modifying the existing BIOS code in a system. SO long as the code manipulated is legaly obtained there is no issue. If this guy was selling pirate X-boxes I'd say string him up by his tonails. But morally he was selling the equivalent of moded EFI control chips for EFI cars.

    software design has much more in common with engineering design than it does with intellectual works. controlling BIOS code to a specific piece of hardware is tantamount to contolling the use of IF/THEN code usuage. The hardware itself largely dictates the BIOS code. All M$ did was add conditional crap that limited what you could use the hardware for. Something akin to making a hammer that could only be used outside to hammer specific nails instead of using it to hit anything anywhere you want. Why ? Becasue the X-box is essentially and X86 computer with the ability to display quality graphics on a TV for a price point of $250. If they allowed it to be used as an X86 box is would reveal the insane overpriceing of computer hardware. We think of $800 computers as cheap yet you would be hard pressed putting a box together with the specs of the X-box for that price yet ultimately it is the same thing. Or perhaps thats not overpriced and console marketing looses money on the hardware to make it up in $50 a pop game sales and allowing a 250 general purpose computer on the market would kill the PC market which can't compete that way.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped

Close