Xbox Auto-Update Blocks Linux Usage 702
An anonymous reader writes "According to The Inquirer, Microsoft has used their Xbox Live Vole System to patch any Xboxes that access it....without asking their permission before installing the software. However, in this occurrence, the bug appears to be the 'dashboard bug' that allows Linux to be easily installed on an Xbox. Further, according to The Xbox Linux Project, users who do not have an Xbox Live account may find themselves being patched without permission as well. If a gamer tries to access any part of a game that uses Xbox Live, the console can 'phone home' and install the patches anyway. While patching bugs can be a nice touch to poor software, I don't know if I feel comfortable with ANYONE installing software on my hardware without asking permission first."
Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:4, Interesting)
But every once in a while, a great game such as Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic will come along, and be available only for Xbox...and I begin to reconsider.
Sigh...
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
So sayeth Gamespot [gamespot.com].
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Funny)
PC's are dirt cheap! I would say 800 - 1000 for a nice PC with tons of ram and a Geforce4 128 meg card
I don't know where you are buying your dirt but, trust me, you are being ripped off!
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:4, Funny)
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you, it will.
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:4, Insightful)
Every Xbox sold gets to be another point in their lineup. It's their grand scheme for putting Sony and Nintendo out of business. Dump hardware on the market so everyone buys it, and get lock-in.
You'd screw them more buy not buying an Xbox at all.
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:2)
Play it on the PC [microsoft.com]. No lock-in there. Riiiiiiight.
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
Bungie was one of the few Mac only game houses that produced good games for the mac all the way back to my first first person shooter, Marathon. Most people don't realize, but Halo was announced [macworld.com] for the Mac. If you look here [bungie.org] you can find links to the video of the premere of Halo for the mac at Macworld '99 New York. I was at that keynote when Steve Jobs introduced the 2 minute movie for Halo rendered using the game engine in real time, not pre recorded. I almost creamed my pants. I remember thinking to my self that this was the game that was finaly going to bring the Mac into the gaming arena. Even my PC using Mac bashing friend who I dragged with me was drooling over it. Alas, before it's Macintosh release, Microsoft bought out bungie and made them the "X-Box Development Team". That was a sad day for us Apple people all over. Bungie was known in the mac community as a top noch developer of mac games including one of our first first-person shooters, Marathon. At least you can still pick up the Bungie Mac Action Sack [pcandvideogames.com] and try some of the awsome games this company once made for the macintosh.
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
Halo was ALWAYS going to be a PC/Mac game. But once MS purchased them, they saw potential in releasing it on the xbox. Now remember, this is a company which is very perfectionistic. They didnt want to release a full blo
Re:Groundbreaking suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
I remember a really nifty piece of software called DigiGuide, which would automatically retrieve TV listings for you and sort and display them however you wanted. It was really useful, and free, and I thought it was great. Then one day, version 2 decided to upgrade itself to version 3, without warning me, without waiting for approval, and without giving me a chance to say no. Sure enough, version 3 was unusable; it was clunky, unstable, and half the time it took my pc down with it. I stopped using
Re:Even better suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe NOW it is, since Microsoft introduced the concept of loss-leading on the hardware...made up by software licensing.
Originally, it was to have specialized hardware to do one thing--and to do it well. I still believe very much in this philosophy. I rarely buy combination devices (such as radar detector/GPS/compass/etc, swiss army knives) because they do a lot, but not always well, and to upgrade one part, you need to re-buy the whole thing.
I use my computer as a TOOL. I get my work done on it. I communicate with my friends and family with it. It is the closest I come to a "do-all" device. But games I leave to something else. It's a personal choice--so I won't claim that everyone should do the same.
However, the idea that consoles exist solely as a means of "control" is ludicrous. I love my GameCube--because it is simple, and it works. And it has the best controller ever. YMMV....
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Umm
Sony and Nintendo have consistently sold console systems as loss-leaders with the plan to recoup costs primarily from game licenses.
Not trying to stick up for MS, but they hardly *innovated* that particular tactic.
Try to remember that we are not talking about a general purpose computer, we are talking about a specific purpose, console system. If you don't like them, great, don't buy them. There are lots of games that are made for the PC (heck, I just broke down and bought my first console since the Atari 2600 'cause I didn't see the need).
A console is ENTIRELY about control.
The console manufacturer typically charged an exhorbitant fee for a dev kit.
They also charged premium prices for distribution.
For those charges, a game company would have access to a relatively captive audience (they already own the system, if they don't buy any games then its their loss), and a fixed set of hardware/software (so that they can specifically target the game
Not saying that all development houses take advantage of everything, and recently there has been a trend toward a more open approach on the Dev kit side, but it still is preaty much about control.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Sony is *not*, and never has, lost money on the PS1 or the PS2 in order to make up the difference on the games.
The gamecube never did before the Xbox did. They might be doing it now, but they weren't before.
The reason people believe this happened before is due to Sony announcing the PS2 for $299 while everyone else was selling higher. Right away there were shouts of dumping. (dumping is the term for selling product at a loss to destroy your competitors.)
But they were wrong, because at that time, the exchange rate was at a point where $299 still meant a profit.
www.actsofgord.com/Proclamations/chapter02.html [actsofgord.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
As a PS2 modder, I'd put it more down to a more simplified design.
The original PS2 was extraordinarialy poorly designed. To the point that the pair of motherboards were SOLDERED together with a heatsink sandwiched between. Imagine soldering your PCI cards into your motherboard. It's crazy.
The new PS2s use a single motherboard design with a power supply that isn't soldered in. The material for the motherboard seems to be cheaper (thinner) too.
Also, the various hookup cables have been reduced to a minimum and simplified where possible. Plus at least one chip was changed to a BGA package, reducing costs further.
So I'd guess it's just older technology getting cheaper + a redesign.
The Xbox has undergone similar, but far less drastic changes over time.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really now?
Sony seems to differ with you on that opinion...
Sony loses AU$100 per unit [zdnet.com.au]
Sony Computer Entertainment Australia MD, Michael Ephraim:
No. Generally the manufacturer takes the losses on the cuts. If you look at a lot of reports, manufacturers of console games machines lose money. It's the razors and blades game. If a person buys the razors, they keep buying the blades. The company
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
The loss leading idea came about from Sega. They bitched that Sony sold the PS1 at a loss in the US, due to a significant price difference between the US and Japanese systems. Really, what happened was Sony's costs obviously went down from the time of the Japanese launch, and the dollar to yen exchange rate had a large sh
Re:Even better suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
You've got your facts a little skewed. I believe Sony was the first to sell its PS1 consoles at a loss, to gain marketshare over the mighty N back when the PS1 first came out. They made their money from the game licensees.
At least, I think that's how it all started with the consoles. I may be fuzzy on the details, but I'm 99% sure that MS wasn't the first to use this strategy.
-JC
Re:Even better suggestion (Score:3, Insightful)
All the major console makers have done this a some point, the playstation 1 was sold at a loss when it was first released even though at the time it cost in the region of 300 pounds here in the uk, but sony have gained a lot more experience in making console hardware since then, the PS2 was never sold at a loss, it always either broke even or made a profit.
What makes Microsoft differe
Re:Even better suggestion (Score:3, Informative)
And the point of that complete dominance is a consistant, reliable platform on which to play games that you can almost absolutely be sure will work on that hardware without any configuration, driver updating, or service pack installation.
In other words, it's a feature, not a bug.
Any serious Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know there's a camp that uses it for both, and it's rather large. However, you should probably consider just buying another computer for that sort of thing.
Re:Any serious Linux users... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Any serious Linux users... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the suprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, I would say that such a willing loss of control, freedom, and some can even argue morals, is good for the home desktop/console market at large (though it is alarming to realize that software console could be so badly written that it would demand security updates). For the corporate setting, such a sacrifice is unacceptable and even hazardous - as the article mentions.
The underlying sentiment of the article, the editors here, and a large population of Slashdot is that "Microsoft is behaving badly - Linux is good". I agree with this sentiment and philosophy, but only to a certain degree. Microsoft Windows is an extremely well established desktop operating system with very mature gaming technologies. For this reason, I feel that it should remain the home desktop choice. As a server operating system or workstation operating system, I feel that it costs companies too much, is too closed, is too insecure, is not flexible enough, and most importantly, is not powerful enough. The entire business ethic and development model of Microsoft is so painfully harmful to large businesses that it's laughable.
Bottom line: If you willingly use a Microsoft product, don't be suprised when they bend you over: they have been doing to everyone for years. Linux should prevail on your servers and workstations, Windows should prevail at home, for basic common sense reason and moral justifications.
Re:Why the suprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
In some cases, in certain interpretations, this can be a good thing: like automatic patches for security vulnerabilities. However, there are many reasons why such intrusive behavior - regardless of motive - is bad.
Not trying to defend M$ or anything, but when you put it that way I guess they really are just trying to secure the xbox. After all, it _is_ being hacked.
Re:Why the suprise? (Score:2)
But an Xbox, if I bought it I would want to do what I want with it, when people start making hacked servers for xbox live then we can question morality.
Re:Why the suprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
People figured out how to make the Xbox do something it wasn't designed to do. Microsoft has taken the stance that it doesn't want that happening on their systems, especially when you consider the fact that with Xbox Live factored into the equation, and that this might open the door for cheaters to ruin online game, hell Just look at SOCOM. Don't you usually patch your games for better online play? If you play online, you need to patch the structure to make sure nothing sneaky has comprimised the games. If you dont want to, you just choose not to install Live! It's that simple. Xbox Live! and Xbox itself are intertwined. They both need updating or else the weak link breaks the system.
Microsoft has made its move. Now its your turn. Either circumvent it or give up. But jesus chrsit quit whining about how evil Microsofts intentions are.
Re:Why the suprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that MS can claim ownership on the machines ONCE THEY ARE SOLD is dangerous in the extreme.
Oh and by the way, any company that tries to install software without asking permission is installing spyware as far as I am concerned, that goes for Gator, MS and any other pos company that tries it.
Re:Why the suprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
But by connecting it to XBox Live, you are connecting to Microsoft's network, and they can do whatever they feel like (namely, whatever's allowable under their EULA; those things no one ever reads.)
If you want to run linux on your XBox.. great. Go ahead and do so. But don't bitch and whine when you try to play games online and they won't work or your linux partition gets screwed. There
Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Patches on the game! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patches on the game! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Patches on the game! (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have to sign an EULA to use an XBox? (Score:5, Insightful)
If not...then wouldn't this be unauthorized access to a computing device, which was made a federal crime I thought in the last round of Justice Department power grabbing?
We all know about the quasi-legal nature of software granting itself the right to phone home or take action against your system, but that relies on the arguement the user accepted the EULA to use the software. What about hardware?
The last console I owned was a Super Nintendo so I just don't know, do modern consoles have EULAs?
- JoeShmoe
.
Re:Do you have to sign an EULA to use an XBox? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many years ago I purchased one of those APEX 600-A DVD players with the loophole menu. About a month after I got it, it wouldn't power on. I took it back to get repairs under warantee. When I got it back, I found that the firmware had been upgraded to a newer one that removed the loophole menu. I complained to Circuit City but they told me there was nothing I could do.
Ultimately, I disputed the charge on my credit card arguing they had not given me the product I paid for. The credit card company agreed with me and gave me a refund that I used to buy a second APEX player.
So, on that line...what if you are one of the unluckies that has his XBox self-patch? If you paid with a credit card, why not dispute it?
- JoeShmoe
.
But the bug is not a feature. (Score:3, Informative)
To be considered "fit for purpose" the good has to be fit for the general purpose for which it was sold as well as any specific additions covered by discussions etc between the purchaser and the seller.
On top of that is the concept of the "reasonable person".
As far as an XBox goes it's general purpose is to play XBox games (and work w
Re:Do you have to sign an EULA to use an XBox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect.
According to US law you are the legal owner of that particular copy. The law is quite clear about the ownership of particular copies being seperate from holding a copyright. It is the reason used bookstores and used CD stores and used computer games are legal. When you buy the medium a copy is stored on you are the owner of that particular copy. Amongst other things that means that you have the right to sell it, and you have the right not to have that copy disrupted by anyone.
APEX people are free to support or NOT support any feature they want, it's their software.
They are certainly free to support or not support anything they like. But once they sell it that hardware and that particular copy of software is no longer their property. They cannot legally do anything to someone else's property without permission.
unsupported thing that they decided to remove in later versions.
That's fine, they are perfectly free to can sell a new version. Buy they have no right to touch MY copy.
Your analogy to a car coming back without the radio is ridiculous.
No it isn't, but I'll change the example if you like. You buy a car with a custom paint job, some sort of art work. Ohh, lets say it's artwork of angels and flowers and bunny rabbits. You bring it in for an oil change and it comes back with a new paintjob. This time it's demons and strippers. By your logic that is perfectly fine since they painted it in the first place and they are the copyright holder on that artwork.
(Note: if you'd actually preffer a car with demons and strippers over angels and flowers then reverse the exaple, they painted over your cool demons with fluffy bunny rabbits)
But it's hardly illegal
Hopefully the artwork example makes it crystal clear that it is completely illegal. If you still dissagree then you need to explain away the car/artwork situation.
credit card company to agree with you
It wasn't me, I was just saying that person was right. Going through the credit card company was good thinking, much easier than draging them through small claims court.
-
Re:Do you have to sign an EULA to use an XBox? (Score:3, Informative)
Uhm...one big problem here. Microsoft isn't accessing your XBox. Your XBox is accessing Microsoft's servers.
EULA...Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
But then again, what the hell did you expect when it said "Microsoft" on the box?
Re:EULA...Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah that explains everything.
It was in the EULA I signed when I purchased it.
Oh, no EULA to sign when I purchase it? Well, it must be clearly printed on the side of the box where I can see it when I purchase it.
Oh, no EULA there either? Well, how about when I open the box the XBox itself has a big EULA taped over the power button that I have to read.
Nope, not one there either. Well, when I first turn it on, I have to agree, right?
Nope, guess not.
So where exactly is this magical EULA I've agreed to "even without buying Live?"
it is on the outside of the box (Score:3, Informative)
Vole? (Score:5, Funny)
Definition of 'Vole':
(1) any of numerous small rodents of the genus Microtus and related genera, mostly of Eurasia and North America and having a stocky body, short tail, and inconspicuous ears: family Cricetidae.
(2)(in some card games, such as ecarte) the taking of all the tricks in a deal, thus scoring extra points.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions
If you want to run Linux . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously, the next step is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, the next step is for Microsoft to start throwing the patches on the game disks -- watch for an 'update firmware' message the first time you boot the game.
If you mod it, stay off of their network... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you mod your x-box...fine. If some MS goons break into your house and restore your x-box to the factory default, you have something to complain about. If you expect to play on MS's network with your modded x-box without any consequences, you're a fucking moron.
Agreed! (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has every right to protect their networks from cheating gamers.
What am I missing here? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone didn't have an XBOX Live account, why the HELL would they have an ethernet cable jacked into their box with a connection to the outside world?
Re:What am I missing here? (Score:5, Funny)
Because like most linux users they are using it to host child pornography and hacking software, run an open relay for spammers, and allow al-qaeda operatives to coordinate their terrorist attacks. Can't do any of that without a network connection.
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope someone under 18 who bought an Xbox sues.
In Europe, apparently... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this help stop the cheaters? (Score:2)
If this does anything to stop cheaters (if only a simple deterrent to force them into a chip mod if they really want to) then i'm all for it.
MS is just testing the waters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Knows no matter how many times they say patch or else. Millions of people wait for the or else to happen, and it makes them look bad.
This is just the same has forced childhood immunization for better public heath. You don't have to immunize every machine, just enough so the probability of the next machine in the series being vulnerable is near zero.
Definition of a bug (Score:4, Interesting)
Where does it connect to? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize this would be temporary once they start making game loaders install patches for them. They could include something like this in an updated game developer SDK.
The google toolbar does this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The google toolbar does this (Score:3, Interesting)
The Google toolbar has never broken any existing functionality by being patched. Windows, Office, Xbox, just about every piece of software MS writes has had a patch break something that used to work. THAT is the difference, and why nobody has complained. Plus when Google updates, they ADD features, they don't take away features like MS has been known to do in the name of security.
This was predicted (Score:4, Informative)
Whining, bitching, moaning, etc... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come the FUCK on.
Did you just miss the entire function of a console? It's called plug n' play you whining freaks, designed specifically to make downloads, patching and other OS maintence/updates as transparent as possible while allowing the user to concentrate on gaming , or did you forget that MINOR point in the process of modding the XBox for a function if was never intended to fullfill? Like saaaaay... TURNING IT INTO A PC AND ADDING LINUX TO IT?????
And golly gee whiz, those same Linux Activists are now finding that their console, designed to primarily be a hands off OS device, is downloading patches WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!?!?! THE HORROR! Will you people get some perspective, not to mention a freakin' CLUE!??! Of course it's downloading and patching shit without your permission since that was how it was designed in the first place-- A seemless gaming experience, which means not asking you all the annoying details on OS upkeep. IMAGINE THAT.
And for cryin out loud, it's not what you're doing that pisses me off so much, it's the innocent, self-righteous "we've been wronged!" attitude that you take doing it. Give it a rest already. You're modding a device beyond it original purpose and beyond the intentions/plans of the designers. Suck it up already.
Re:Whining, bitching, moaning, etc... (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter what, MS is bad to a lot of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The means, not the end (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] their console, designed to primarily be a hands off OS device, is downloading patches WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!?!?! THE HORROR!
And that's the crux of the problem. It does no one harm to add a message that says "Your XBox will now be updated. If you do not update you will not be able to play online." before the actual update happens. I might note that this is exactly what Square does with its PS2 PlayOnline system: it won't let you play without the newest version, for obvious reasons, but it give
UHMMM.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well then... (Score:4, Informative)
Sue Microsoft.
Seriously though, the solution here is to try to firewall off your x-box and do packet filtering. Block any "update" patches.
Microsoft fixes a buffer overflow bug... (Score:3, Funny)
"Fit for purpose" and the "reasonable person" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that most reasonable people would accept that the purpose for which an XBox is generally sold is for the running of XBox games. Unless an update interferes with that and therefore renders the XBox unfit for purpose I doubt we'd get much help from consumer protection law.
The concept of a "reasonable person" is also used. I doubt you could argue successfully that a "reasonable person" would expect something that is unadvertised by the manufacturer and publically discussed as a "bug" is a "feature" that has subsequently been removed.
So I think in terms of consumer protection law you'd be out of luck in declaring that the product has been rendered defective or unfit for purpose by the update.
There might be other legal avenues, but I think that one is closed.
Ahem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony was trying to get a tax break, so they really pushed to have the PlayStation 2 classified as a computer rather than a video game console. To that end, they released Linux and the development kit add-on for it.
Microsoft has been very adamant. According to the Xbox Terminology Guide, you are only allowed to call it the "Xbox Video Game System."
The classification does tend to support a certain viewpoint, however. Microsoft isn't auto-updating your computer unless you consent. They're upgrading your video game console...although you do consent when you sign up for Live, if you actually read the Terms of Service.
Re:Ahem... (Score:3, Informative)
They're upgrading your video game console...although you do consent when you sign up for Live, if you actually read the Terms of Service.
They're doing the upgrade regardless of whether you are using Live, if you actually read the article.
Do you people really ever listen to yourselves? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you decided they were geeky enough if you could install Linux (the Arch Competitor of Microsoft).
You bought hardware and claim it as your own, with Microsoft saying if you are going to use their services, you aree going to have to maintain their security.
Then you all act surprised like you can't believe Microsoft would actually fight to have their software remain intact.
You play with fire and you get burned.
Bite the bullet and flash the TSOP (BIOS) (Score:3, Informative)
If you want Live, use a modchip with a switch or an older Xbox that supports multiple BIOS images on the TSOP, or just an unmodded Xbox.
If you don't care about Live, just flash your TSOP and be done with it.
xbox-scene.com [xbox-scene.com] has excellent tutorials on how to get the 007: Agent Under Fire and Mechassult hacks onto an unmodified Xbox using only a memory card, your Xbox joystick and a modified USB cable. The instructions for using these hacks to reflash the TSOP are very easy to follow and accurate for every Xbox version.
I've modded 5 Xboxes by flashing the TSOP so far and haven't had a single problem... If you don't care about Live, it's the easiest and cheapest way to go.
Flame war missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
HOWEVER patching systems not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is not right. Thats like taking you car to the dealership for a tune up and they replace your aftermarket rims and replace them with stock because they were not 'standard' without asking your permission. It is an unauthorized alteration of your system. That is not M$'s box it is property of whoever purchased it. M$ has the right to not allow unconforming boxes to access its system, it does not have the right to alter your system so that it is conforming without your consent.
EULA for the equipment cannot determin the use of the equipment. You can't state a phone can only be used for a phone and not a paper weight. You can't say this system is not allowed to be used for something we don't want it to be used for. And for those contending this is a console and thus not a PC all I can say is you don't understand this at a technical enough level. This is like ford selling you a car that will only drive on certain roads or use gas dispensed at a specific gas station chain. For any who contend X-box is not a PC you simply don't get it. a PS II or Game cube are not PC's.. they have a differnt base architeture which physically keep them from running PC software. An XBOX is a PC. It uses X-86 PC compatabile hardware architecture. Its ability to use any PC compatible software is artificially limited by the hardware control software. M$ has everyright to sell a limited system, it does not have the right to alter your removal of that limitation without first obtaining your consent, and obtaining your consent means you have to have a reasonable chance to deny the request. Patching a system not signed up for the live service without the owners consent is criminal.
Don't buy an X-Box - buy a PS/2 instead! (Score:3, Insightful)
I find Microsoft breathtakingly arrogant and their products extremely inefficient and bloaty but you cannot be surprised when they want to patch their own product to reduce the likelyhood of hackers messing about with the X-Box Live network!
No, the most worrying aspect about all of this is the support that it lends (to average users) to the 'Palladium' initiative and to trusted computing in general - i.e. to turn all computers into turnkey systems that cannot be modified by the end user.
My suggestion? Support other vendors that actively encourage Open Source such as Sony and their PS/2
Playstation 2 Linux Kit [playstation.com]
Playstation 2 Linux Home Page [playstation2-linux.com]
and withdraw any support for products (such as the X-Box) that encourage 'trusted computing' and Palladium.
BTW I use both M$ XP at work/home and various flavours of Linux.
This is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
3.-(1)A person is guilty of an offence if-
(a)he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(b)at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing-
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
(3)The intent need not be directed at-
(a)any particular computer;
(b)any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
(c)any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
(5)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.
(6)For the purposes of the [1971 c.48.] Criminal Damage Act 1971 a modification of the contents of a computer shall not be regarded as damaging any computer or computer storage medium unless its effect on that computer or computer storage medium impairs its physical condition.
(7)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable-
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; and
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine or to both.
So, according to section 3 subsection 4, If you did not give Microsoft explicit permission to modify your XBox, but they deliberately changed some software or data on it to stop you doing something, then they have quite probably broken the law. You may not have automatically authorised the modification merely by opening the box, see Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 [antell.name] for my reasoning {note that certain sections would not be valid in respect of a software licence}, but I am no lawyer.
Re:what? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's Mine. I'll do with it what I want.
Hell all _I_ wanted to do with the Linux exploit is move my Knights of the Old Republic save from my old flaky Xbox to the new one. I'll be pursuing action against Microsoft for the defective Xbox now.
It's one of the first-run Hungarian run boxes with bad digital out (no dolby
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
update (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems that the dash does allow you to copy to-from your hard drive and a memory card (as it should).
Re: Microsoft owns it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Microsoft owns it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Take away the customer's legal recourse, and they'll find another way to justice.
Re: Microsoft owns it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Microsoft owns it? (Score:5, Funny)
What are MS thinking? They're not exactly known for their bug-free bug fixes. What if something goes wrong here? Is the risk really worth it to stop such a minority of X-Box owners?
Re: Microsoft owns it? (Score:4, Insightful)
They fixed the bugs because they were... get this... bugs. What allowed Linux to run on an unmodded xbox was a buffer overflow exploit. Why would you knowingly leave those in a code revision?
You want to run linux on a xbox? mod it. or just go buy a cheap Dell.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the software is entirely a different issue - some games may indeed try to force an EULA on you upon purchase to allow such activities (which would become a sticky situation when renting), or enrollment into the XBOX Live system, but the hardware itself is yours to keep and do whatever you want to.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know they're invalid in most part here in Quebec. Essentially unenforcable.
You see, there's this point of contract law that's important here: that a contract is only valid if it can be read and signed by the party before at the time of sale. Any subsequent conditions, clauses, or contract modifications are null unless agreed by both parties. Once I've paid for Windows, it's mine. I can do what I can with it. Once I buy my Xbox it's mine (supposition here, I don't own an xbox and am not interested in buying one). I never signed any contract at the register allowing Microsoft to modify it without my permission, nor was there a mention of that on the box.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you play on Live, it's more than just you. You have to ensure that people are playing on a level playing field. Sure, you pay for Xbox Live service too, but when you join a health club, that doesn't mean you can go in and destroy their equipment.
So what if you don't play online? Just dont install Live. Make sure you never click through to Xbox Live on your console.
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
In europe we do things differently. You see cars are tested for compliance. If it doesn't comply you get a reason handed to you why not and the car is handed back without them modifing a single thing. Damn lazy bastards why can't they just fix and tune it like they do in the states :(
You see noone is allowed to mess with your car. An exception is perhaps the police
Re:what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Go stand at Toys R. Us, or Best Buy. Wait until someone seems to be about to buy an x-box.
Then tell them what you have just told us, that after you buy the x-box, it won't be your hardware, it will still belong to Microsoft. If they seem incredulous, explain to them exactly how and why this is the case.
See how many of them actually buy the x-box after that. I'd be curious.
Re:what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite seriously, if I bought an X-Box, I think it'd be rather neat if it self-patched. Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that. I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have an XBox, and I patched it on XBox Live without having a Live account. You connect, and it updates Dashboard and all is well. This is what I expect with a console that has a hard drive.
Normal customers buy it to play games on, and it's a perfectly good platform for that.
I don't want Linux on my XBox. I want my XBox to play games. People are getting their panties in a bundle because Microsoft is fixing bugs in their software and auto-patching. How else are they going to try to keep this stuff patched? Otherwise they end up with a hundred-and-one different XBox software versions out there. It's easier to bitch about rights instead of thinking that this is actually a good thing and just a few people are being inconvenienced by it.
I certainly wouldn't buy it for something else, so really, I don't particularly care. I can see the angle some people are coming from, and I understand it... but this isn't really an issue where you can get the normal customer outraged, because it doesn't affect what they actually bought the product to do.
It does exactly what I expected it to do. All the way, and I enjoy it. It does affect what I bought the product to do though, it makes it better.
Re:what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Microsoft should put in patches the way that the rest of the game consoles do it - you put the updated libraries onto the individial game discs that need them.
Using the hard drive to hold patches just brings us back to Windows DLL Hell. This is considered acceptable on a desktop, but on a game console, it can be the death of the machine. People tolerate crashes on their PC's, they don't tolerate them on game machines.
Microsoft should not be patching the XBox's without notifying the user if they use the hard drive in such a way. If my favorite game was no longer playable because of an update, I'd be super pissed.
This was one major issue that we support engineers discussed around Sega. We concurred that using the hard drive for holding the operating system would be problematic, as would automatic patching.
-- Joe
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys know it's not yours (Score:4, Insightful)
Now before the flames begin, I believe that what I buy should be mine to do whatever with. But due to whatever rules that govern software it just doesn't happen. For instance, if I mod my Nokia phone with some new software I can probably bet that Verizon isn't gonna let me access their network. Yeah the phone is mine, but they don't have to let it on thier network if it's been modded. Lemme change some settings in my RCA modem to get better DL speeds on Comcast cable internet. Yep, Comcast will shut it off. Go mod your car's CPU and bet that Ford will say nope you voided the warranty, not our problem. Not all car mods are legal.
Software has never been anyone's it's been sold to. Why does anyone think M$ will change just because it's a video game system?
Re:You guys know it's not yours (Score:3, Informative)
copyright infringement is not theft, theft is a crime that in most countries is governed by completely different legislation.
Re:You guys know it's not yours (Score:3, Informative)
>hasn't been your software ever. You may own the
>CD it's on but the bits burned on to it are
>owned by the creator of the content.
You seem to confuse "owning" with having the copyright". It is two very different things and one does not imply the other. Hence someone can own something without having the copyright on it. Someone can also hold a copyright without owning it. Of course, in some cases one can have someone owning something AND holding the
Re:what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Get a mod chip that generates all possible sequences of machine IDs.
2. In protest of this policy connect with such a mod chip, get all x-boxes banned.
3. Profit?
An Xbox (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because other people are more creative than you doesn't give you a right to bash them. Whether or not the end result of this patch was to block linux, it still stands that applying this patch without the owner's permissions is a violation.
How about if somebody covertly "patched" your DSL/cable modem, and suddenly it prevented your from doing slashdot, or something that depending on it it operating in a certain way.