Judge Berates Prosecutors In Xbox Modding Trial 285
mrbongo writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"Opening statements in the first-of-its-kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had 'serious concerns about the government's case.' ... Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday."
And tomorrow... (Score:5, Insightful)
And tomorrow the feds drop the case since they don't want to set a precedent, and try again next month with a friendlier judge.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
you know... precedent is only set by cases they (judges) choose to publish. They can rule anyway they want and then not let the case be published in the proper way which then prevents it from ever being referenced in future trials.
Most people are also unaware that judges regularly edit the transcripts after the fact. (The reason they don't let you tape record proceedings without permission.)
Re:And tomorrow... (Score:4, Informative)
you know... precedent is only set by cases they (judges) choose to publish. They can rule anyway they want and then not let the case be published in the proper way which then prevents it from ever being referenced in future trials.
Most people are also unaware that judges regularly edit the transcripts after the fact. (The reason they don't let you tape record proceedings without permission.)
Actually, precedent is set at the appellate level. The trial court level does not set precedent. And, even then, the precedent is only binding on lower courts. Although, other appellate courts at the same level sometimes use those decisions as "persuasive authority" in their own decisions, even though they are not strictly bound by them.
Re:And tomorrow... (Score:5, Informative)
No.
First, thanks to the ease of putting and accessing cases on the computer, some federal courts now accept the citing of 'unpublished' opinions.
Second, all previously-decided cases establish precedents, but only some are binding precedents, which a court must follow, while most are merely persuasive, which a court may or may not follow as it sees fit. It's perfectly acceptable to cite the opinions of trial courts, if that's the best thing you've got.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they can. If the trial has begun, jeopardy has attached. Dropping and re-filing would constitute double jeopardy.
Re:And tomorrow... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, double jeopardy applies to trials regardless whether it was an acquittal or conviction. The defense cannot ask "for another trial" when found guilty, they can appeal. There has to be a basis for the appeal but an appeal is not another trial of the same kind, you go to the court of appeals and a judge or judges will determine if something was done wrong during a trial in order to warrant a change in the decision.
Also, the only way a trial can be retried over different charges that cover the same actions is if they are significantly different charges (you can't charge someone with manslaughter and then later charge them with murder for the same death. You can however charge them later with robbery if the murder arose from the robbery).
And from wikipedia: "Nor can the state voluntarily dismiss a case after trial has begun in order to start over." If there is declared a mistrial, or if the Judge dismisses without prejudice then yes, they can start over. But a prosecutor cannot voluntarily drop a case and then restart it. Double jeopardy forbids it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically that's absolutely how it will go down. At some point during the trial the feds will drop the case since the judge is extremely hostile.
The only change is that they can't pull this guy into court again, but that's not to say tomorrow they arrest some other guy and try again with a friendlier judge.
Re: (Score:3)
Danger Will Robinson (Score:5, Interesting)
Often the side that gets the most serious sledging is the one that the judge thinks is likely to win, because he wants to make sure that he has addressed any points that could be appealed.
Jury Nullification Time! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this would be the proper time for the defense to prove that he did not in fact break the law. The jury has one purpose. They are to be educated on the law that the prosecution says the defendant broke, and then decide if he actually broke that law. They're not supposed to decide if the law is "fair" or not. That's what legislatures and supreme courts do. Not juries. And while we all love to think that by some divine coincidence a jury will be selected that all agree the laws were broken, but
Re:Jury Nullification Time! (Score:4)
This is one time that I agree. If you actually read the DMCA, there isn't any part of it that applies to the situation. Modifying a player that is already capable, on its own, of accessing the work protected by the tech measure, simply isn't an act of making/selling a device that circumvents tech measures that control access to the work. There just doesn't seem to be any part of DMCA as written, that prohibits this sort of thing. All the jury has to do is apply the law that Congress wrote, rather than bad precedents, and it'll be an innocent verdict.
If the industry buys a new law to amend DMCA to prohibit this sort of thing, then I'll start to disagree with you, and say the people should uphold fairness. You say that thinking about fairness is what legislatures and supreme courts do, and that is a noble thing for us to strive to get our governments to do. Yes, it is our responsibility to some day elect legislatures that think about fairness, and if the law isn't fair, then it's our fault.. But if a person does not believe the public has successfully done that yet, then from their point of view, thinking about fairness has not yet happened at any point in the process, so when it's their turn to be on a jury, that is last chance for fairness to play any role in the system. If Congress didn't worry about fairness, then jurors are the only place fairness can be considered before an innocent person is harmed by government force for no good reason. If you're a juror and you don't think the lawmakers have tried to be fair, then you must nullify.
And let's remember, this is DMCA we're talking about here. Go ahead and just try to make a case that congress and the courts even paid lip service to fairness. It's one thing for a racist to disagree with a legislature that insists a black man be allowed to vote. He might wish the legislature hadn't done that and disagree that they should have. But deep down he knows that at least they did that due to public pressure and a shitload of people demanding to be treated like people. Fairness is the whole point of civil rights laws, and a desire to not let fairness go too far, is the "reason" someone would nullify such laws. You can't compare this type of situation to how DMCA got passed. The section 1201 prohibitions are pure bullshit.
Let me try another tack: if nullification has been used for injustice, does that mean it shouldn't be used for justice? A juror can't blow off his responsibility just because some people in the past have fucked it up.
Re: (Score:3)
The jury has one purpose.
This is a myth. The founding fathers were quite clear that the jury has the power to judge both the facts and the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, prosecute those who modded mortgages (Score:2, Offtopic)
Shouldn't we be focusing our attention on the Wall Street crooks who stole money through the home mortgage scandals?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prosecution Moves Forward Despite Judge's Outburst (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't see it shared in the comments, but regardless of the tirade, the prosecution has decided to move forward with the case:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/no-deal-in-xbox-modding-case-trial-begins/
Common - Judges often have issues with these cases (Score:5, Interesting)
Having been prosectued under the NET act and DMCA the judge in our cases expressed conserns as well. While the goverment had a better case, the judge felt this was closer to a civil case then a criminal a case, and went on to explain the futher education is required by the goverment of what this legislation means for the average person. In the end I plead guilty, as we were one of the first cases to go and had no money for a real attorney, plus probation is much better then 3-5 years in jail.
I think the goverment should prosecute in severe cases where monterary gain or where there is conterfit good involved. But for modders of an Xbox, that is like prosecuting a mechnanic for installing upgrades to your car. At best a Civil case, at worst a waste of federal tax payers dollars and judicial resources
Its always been "assumed" mod chips are illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Im surprised the defense hasnt considered a "substantial non-infringing uses" defense. For instance playing backup disks and homebrew. The well known issue of scratched disks, and the desire for interoperability with non-microsoft approved software. This is separate from "fair use" in that the illegality of the mod chip itself is challenged.
Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are our tax dollars paying our lawyer to press criminal charges against one of our citizens on the behalf if a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation for altering legally purchased private property?
I remember when AT&T was forced, gasp, to use non AT&T phones on their service because the government protected its citizens. It seems we've come reversed ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The term "Fascism" is derived from the Italian word "fascio" which means bundle. It was first applied by Mussolini describing an economic philosophy (different from capitalism) where government and business are one "bundle" of "fascio."
To enforce such an arrangement, you eventually need a harsh dictator ship, but as an economic principle we are almost there.
So, no, I am not exaggerating.
Does the new fcc phone hacking law have any bearin (Score:2)
Does the new fcc phone hacking law have any bearing on this case?
As you are breaking the part of the DMCA to use the DMCA Exemption to have your phone to run any network / run software out side of the locked down app store?
Also what the xbox mods let you do this run software out side of the game / MS store and also let you use your own network and not be locked into live.
Re:Translation: Judge's son/nephew owns modded Xbo (Score:4, Insightful)
more likely he realizes the court has more valuable things to allocate time and taxpayer money on than going after some kid who hacked his xbox. Or maybe he saw that their argument was pushing beyond the confines of the allegedly broken laws, and he wasn't about to let his courtroom be a tool for them to advance their agenda.
Whatever his motivation was, good for him!
Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Informative)
The judge initially dismissed fair use arguments by the defense, but now seems to be reevaluating that decision. Probably because he too the time needed to understand all the technical and legal details of the case. The DMCA is not a 1-pager you read overnight and its implication on other lega areas is huge.
And the kid absolutley did not just hack his X-box. He had a small business selling modded X-boxes to other people, and was recorded by an agent doing exactly that.
I absolutely think that modding should be allowed for several reasons - so I am not siding with the prosecution here. I am just trying to make the facts clear to everyone.
- Jesper
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference in buying, customizing, then reselling an XBox and in buying, customizing, and reselling a vehicle made by Ford?
None.
This is the insidiousness the IP monopolists are trying to get away with, the ability to sell something yet still OWN it.
Unless the XBox modder bought an XBox, then used it to make other XBoxes, they have no beef.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA doesn't cover your car (yet). Modifying your car doesn't let you do things with it that the manufacturer guaranteed its partners you wouldn't.
Modifying your tailpipe or headers or headlights doesn't circumvent Copyright protection software or hardware. The problem with xbox modding, from the perspective of this case, is that it circumvents a system used to protect Copyrights and therefore falls under the DMCA.
Personally, I wish the DMCA would curl up and die a horrific death, but that said, its d
Xbox 360 vs. Wii and original Xbox (Score:4, Insightful)
The modded XBox will be used almost exclusively to run stolen software.
You may be right about the Xbox 360 platform. But if it were a modded Wii or a modded original Xbox, there might be more evidence of actual substantial noninfringing use. Unlike the Xbox 360, which has XNA, these older consoles have no official environment for running original software developed outside a traditional corporate environment, and for this reason they have picked a vibrant modding community for running such "homebrew".
Re: (Score:2)
But modding a wii or original xbox allows programmers to create their own original content doesn't it. I don't think your argument holds water. If I understand what you are saying, that because there is no non-infringing content, it is wrong to mod it.
The counter argument is that, by moding it, non-infringing content can be created.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A modded X360 cannot run new, non-infringing content; content still needs to be signed by Microsoft's key. Modding just tricks the disc drive into thinking DVD-Rs are pressed DVDs.
Re: (Score:2)
But modding a wii or original xbox allows programmers to create their own original content doesn't it.
That's what I said. One must mod to make and run original software on Wii or original Xbox, but modding is less necessary for Xbox 360 because it has the XNA environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yet people still legally jailbreak their iPhones to get around the lockout on devices they own.
Sure, a couple quick examples for Wii: Wii Earth [google.com], Wiihttpd [wiibrew.org].
Moonshine (Score:5, Interesting)
The modded XBox will be used almost exclusively to run stolen software. I don't believe you can say the same thing about vehicle customization.
O RLY?
From A Brief History of Nascar From Moonshine Runners to Dale Earnhardt Jr. [cio.com]: "Its roots go back to Prohibition when runners—people who delivered moonshine, a home-brewed whiskey distilled from corn, potatoes or anything that would ferment—souped up their cars so they could give the slip to the federal tax agents determined to bust them.
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Love the car analogies...
A (performance) modded car could be used almost exclusively to exceed the speed limit. Easy argument against the practice (lets ignore for a moment emission laws).
Where as an end user could argue that the modifications make their life more convenient by allowing them to reach the posted speed limit more expediently.
Just because something allows you to potentially break the law doesn't always make it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually on the other side with this. If he owns the box, he should be able to mod it.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like he had the point just right to me. Neither he nor any of the other parent posts state that you should be able to take a modified XBox online. It's generally thought that the loss of online access is an acceptable, though annoying, side effect of modding.
This case is NOT about being able to put a modded XBox online. These guys are perfectly happy to use their XBoxes "Off-road." This case is about whether or not it's illegal to mod it in the first place (or more accurately, whether someone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let me beef up the car-mod analogy a tad.
Example the first: a car modded to run over different terrain. Examples: someone local to me, with a love of VW Beetles, put a VW Beetle body on a Jeep CJ Chassis, and called it a "Veep". It's every bit a 4X4 as the Jeep was, and also every bit as street-legal, but now he has something that is truly unique.
Example the second: a car modded to run on a different fuel. Examples: Propane, natural gas, vegetable oil, wood, electricity. Some of these are available a
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A (performance) modded car could be used almost exclusively to exceed the speed limit.
Which is completely necessary for robbing banks, which is of course the only reason to have such fast cars.
Re: (Score:2)
How about if I mod an Xbox to run Linux and install VLC, the use that to play content recorded from ATSC OTA using GB-PVR.
I have GB-PVR, it does record local channels OTA, I watch those recordings already using my PS3, though sometimes the PS3 decides that it can't handle minor errors in the recording. VLC wouldn't have that problem. Unless you want to make the cl
Re: (Score:2)
Except the kid even stated that he was modding Xboxs exclusively to run backups and homebrew software due to the way that the xbox disc tray scratches up discs. Just because it will be able to run pirated software doesn't mean it will be used like that.
Also, pirated software is not stolen :) Just copied.
Re: (Score:2)
The modded XBox will be used almost exclusively to run stolen software.
I hacked my Wii so I could run MPlayer on it to watch movies (ripped from the DVDs I lawfully purchased) streamed my home fileserver. Every other program on my Wii is in the form of games I bought at local retailers. If you think console mods are only for violating copyright, you're missing out on a lot of other cool stuff.
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what they called the stuff they were delivering?
Homebrew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusively? WTF! Seriously, what makes you think that?
Logical thinking and personal experience.
Sure, there are possible non-illegal applications for this, and many of us that do mod our consoles draw some inherent enjoyment from the hobby. But the principle motivation for someone paying someone else to mod their Xbox is almost certainly in part to play pirated media (almost certainly meaning only that actually polling every individual for their motivations is impossible).
Re:Lets get the facts straight :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Analogy is the only way to compare what we know and have experience with to new situations. The vary basis of language is analogy and categorization -- we come to a common agreement on what constitutes "yellow" and treat all things of that class the same way even though it's unlikely that your yellow schoolbus is the the same color as my yellow lemon.
Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
The category of "things protected by IP laws that you can modify aftermarket" seems like a pretty relevant place to start comparison. If you want to object to the analogy based on some specific difference between cars and game consoles feel free, but don't try to dismiss the comparison out of hand.
Also note that "street legal" is an irrelevant comparison for game consoles, as their operation is not regulated by the state, nor is the case at hand about the operation of the modified device -- which the defendant did not do -- only the modification itself and the sale thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
Refusing arguments by analogy is absurd. Argument by analogy is incomplete, in that there are differences between the actual point of contention and the analogous situation, and those differences might make a particular analog inapplicable to a particular situation, but dismissing analogy as an invalid tool for legal or other argument is just silly.
To put it differently, an analogy is not an argument, it is a tool for communication. You cannot end a proof on an analogy; it's not logic, and it doesn't show anything. What it does is open up the floor to a new, related discussion, in order to make a related argument in isolation from complications that arise in the original.
Re: (Score:2)
and was recorded by an agent doing exactly that
which is illegal under California law (without consent)
Which consent is easy to obtain, as I understand it: "I record important support calls for quality purposes; is that OK?"
Re: (Score:3)
that's pretty much every state, except that it was an undercover agent - it was not a support call.
the Judge stating it was a violation of cali law tells you that this consent was not obtained.
Re: (Score:3)
that's pretty much every state, except that it was an undercover agent - it was not a support call.
Actually no, most states (39?) are one-party consent states, not all-party consent, making it perfectly legal for any party to a phone call to record it without getting consent from any other party.
Re: (Score:3)
Agent: I record all purchases for quality purposes; is that ok?
Store Owner: Get the hell out of my store.
Re: (Score:2)
He was recorded in his own home by a person who had no warrant to do so. It's illegal to secretly film inside someone else's house.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by competence.
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody fails at being evil, do they really look like an evil failure to the outside world?
Somebody may be both incompotent and malicious, but we'd never notice.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Translation: Judge's son/nephew owns modded Xbo (Score:5, Funny)
Can I introduce you to the point? I don't think you two have met.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose and actions are most certainly not the same. As I understand it, modding Xbox 360 drives doesn't even enable you to run homebrew (except through obsolete hacks that no longer work on recent Xboxes). Same with modding Wii drives. They don't even let you use imported games. The only two purposes for drive-hacks on secure consoles (which sign code and region restrictions) are piracy and backups, and you can take a guess as to what the actual, practical percentage of people doing either of those is.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because iPhone hacks can be used for copying copyrighted software (legally or not) and for running unauthorized software. Xbox 360 drive hacks can only be used for copying copyrighted software, legally or not. If you want to run unauthorized software you need an entirely different class of modification, which as far as I can tell is not what this guy was performing.
And after patching the drive firmware, it's still l
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than getting warrants after the fact or say a vice cop not just propositioning a hooker but going ahead and sleeping with her, paying her, then arresting her and seeking to keep much of that out of court.
... if that was possible I would seriously consider a change of career ...
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you are a hooker who uses this as a test for vice cops?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No disrespect for the court allowed? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want people to be able to jailbreak their own devices and despite my prejudice against the prosecutors' case any judge that lets lose with a tirade in a court room needs to be removed from the bench. Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
There are rules to follow in the legal system. In this case the judge believe that the prosecution may have seriously failed to follow those rules - in spite of the fact that his job is to know those rules very well indeed. And if the judge suspects your failure to follow the rules are deliberate or due to laziness you may be found to be in contempt of the court - something which can have serious consequences for your case and perhaps even your job in the legal business.
If you show up in front of a judge with a blatant disrespect for the court, the court will give you a hard time for it.
What is the surprise here?
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
Not even another public employee? Not even another public employee who is seriously misusing the power of his office in order to abuse a citizen's rights?
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
Conversely, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer has ever received more than 1/2^64 of what they had coming to them in the ass-chewing department.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a case of rage. I think this is a case of a judge expressing his opinions of problems in the prosecution's case. And they are serious problems.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just trying to get his own TV show, like Judge Joe Brown.
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please place the weapon the floor, pretty please, and then we'll put you in these nice, shiny handcuffs"
"I would very much appreciate it if you didn't cross that safety barrier that you're now crossing, thank you very much."
Nobody should be subjected to anything *unnecessarily* but this is a judge dealing with witnesses who broke the law while collecting evidence, jury-tampering and a prosecution that doesn't see the harm in what they did and continually asserts that to the court and doesn't see the severity. He's probably also extremely annoyed at how a valid court case in quickly turning into a farce at tax-payers expense.
Shouting is not about aggression - it's about tone of voice, volume, and choice of words. If you're shouting in someone's face directly, or pushing forward towards them, that's just rude and confrontational. But it doesn't mean you can't *shout* at them without doing that, only making them realise your displeasure through their own obstinacy and yet not feel threatened.
Shouting at someone, especially someone who should know how irate people behave and be performing their *own* simple professional duty, won't kill them. Teachers shout at kids in school. I shouted at my letting agent last year (and without that, I wouldn't have working plumbing, or my landlord removing their contract, reporting them for breach of contract, extracting *my* deposit from them via a legal process, and dealing with me direct for even the most minor of problems and actually doing a better job). Parents shout at their children in supermarkets. I'm actually *glad* when some kids get told off because it means that the parent is paying attention to their actions and cares about the outcome for everyone - those parents who just say "Come on, now. I won't tell you again. No, really, come on. This is the last time I'll ask you. Please come on, Jack. Jack, if you come now, I'll give you sweeties" REALLY, REALLY need to have a room full of other parents shout at them until they understand why that doesn't work.
It's not a first resort, but it's the last (legal) resort of the ordinary man. We can't all be martyrs and speak perfectly calmly no matter how annoyed we are, and the *WORST* we can do without committing a crime is shout at someone. It's also, generally, incredibly effective. Try politely asking someone on a complaints desk to get their supervisor. In quite a lot of cases it won't happen, especially if they know they are in the wrong. Without shouting, you end in the the same position. Now try shouting only AFTER they refuse to do that. Now try being obstinate and refusing to leave the building until your problem is solved. Now try shouting some more. Nobody gets hurt, injured, threatened or abused, they just get talked to in a loud and certain tone. It has a surprisingly greater result at no significant psychological cost and it's the most you can *legally* do (I do not in any way condone actually threatening or hurting people - by that point, you've lost the argument and sight of what you're trying to achieve).
If you're really that devastated by someone shouting at you, it makes me wonder just how much of global life you're ready for, what your parents did when you ran into the road, and what attention your teachers were paying to you at school.
Shouting *is* the non-aggressive alternative here. The judge is showing that the lawyers are on their last chance and if they don't buck their ideas up, he'll be seeking sanctions against them. This is his way of warning them, and if it was done in a polite note about "The court disagrees with the prosecution", no-one would pay it any attention and if sanctions were then applied, the lawyers would claim there was no way they could see it coming. The judge has been definite, assertive, perfectly clear, aired all his concerns, indicated the seriousness of this to everyone and yet NOT ONE PERSON has been hurt in any way. I just wish a few more parents were like him, really.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure if a judge has lost his cool, there's a damn good reason. In this case, all of the above anomaly stated - literally the government has broken the law on this.
You think a judge is going to be happy/calm about that?
that's like me saying hey, I broke into your house and raped your wife, and someone else saying it's wrong for *you* to be angry over that.
it's not exactly reasonable.
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:4, Interesting)
She's got no issues with berating people in her courtroom whether they be plaintiff, defendant or some random member of the audience. Granted, her show is dramatized for daytime tv ratings purposes. However, she was given the show because of her outspoken nature.
Whether you like it or not, when you step into a courtroom you're in the judge's domain. S/he has rule, and if you are wasting time I'd let you know about it too.
More rage, please. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
The tirade could have been very methodical and deliberate. Nowhere does it say that he turned purple, yelled, and blew spittle all over the bench.
OTOH, public employees have every right to "verbally assault" people who are just boneheaded and interfere with the proper function of government. As a public employee I have every right to "assault" you if I tell you the rules, ask you to follow them, make sure you understand them, and then you still come into my construction site and put yourself and my crews
Re: No Rage Allowed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess I was too busy following the links and reading up on the actual text in the DMCA
- Jesper
Re: (Score:2)
Who's Denny Crane, Quickly, and why has he got a comma in his name?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depended on whether or not he won the toss. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If you modded the boiler so that it fully or semi bypassed the gas meter in order to provide cheap/free heating then the boiler manufacturer and gas companies would complain.
The prosecution argument is that modding an Xbox allows you to bypass that thing known as 'purchasing' to enable you to play games.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a better argument is modding a boiler so you don't have to buy a particular gas companies gas, but now can use 'homebrew' gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that's what this trial was about, they should have charged him with contributory copyright infringement.
Instead they blew off all the concerns about game piracy, and charged him with two bullshit counts of DMCA violations, in an attempt to widen the application of DMCA beyond its original wording. This is about prohibiting people maintaining their own equipm
Re: (Score:2)
It's highly unlikely that the boiler mfg would complain - you already bought the boiler & if you modify it, they no longer have to provide warranty coverage. On the other hand, the gas company would certainly complain in that you are stealing a physical product which has a real world cost to produce and distribute.
On the other hand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This analogy is horrible and completely wrong.
Getting free gas would require tapping into the gas lines before the meter or tampering with the meter, both are property of the gas utility. It is impossible to modify a boiler to get free gas.
This situation in not analogous in any way.
Laws exist to be broken. (Score:2)