Xbox Modders Charged Under DMCA 377
JamesAlfaro wrote to mention a News.com article about a pair of game store owners charged with Xbox modding. From the article: "Jason Jones and Jonathan Bryant, two Los Angeles residents who own the ACME Game Store on Melrose Ave., allegedly sold Xbox game systems that had been modified by Pei Cai, of Pico Rivera, Calif. Cai allegedly equipped the Xbox consoles with modification chips and large hard drives to allow the user to copy rented or borrowed games onto the device for future playback. Buyers would pay from $225 to more than $500 for the changes."
DMCA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it was. Read the article:
The three men are being accused of "conspiring to traffic in a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system and conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement," in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California.
It sounds like that's exactly what they were busted for...
If you RTFA'd or read about it earlier, they were selling the modded Xboxes with pirated games. I hate the DMCA as much as anyone else, but these guys are in the wrong here.
Waitaminnit, we cant just say 'they broke the law and they deserve whatever they get'. We really need to look at this a little more deeply.
They illegally distributed 77 copies of games. You dont need the DMCA to bust people for that, copyright law already covers that infraction, right? So why invoke the unholy spectre of the DMCA?
These guys are facing 5 years prison for this. What sort of punishments would these dudes be receiving if they had sold modded Xboxen with no pre-loaded games? Or what if they had sold the 77 games on DVD-R, without also providing the mod-chips and hard-drives? IOW, are prosecuters using DMCA as a way of going after harsher punishments that would otherwise be impossible under plain-old copyright law?
Currently, mod-chips are technically illegal under the DMCA, but it begs the question 'Should mod-chips themselves be illegal'? If not, then doesnt that throw this whole story in a different light? These guys deserve punishment, without a doubt, but they deserve fair punishment.
That's why this topic should be discussed on slashdot. If you really hate the DMCA, as you claim, then you should closely examine every application of it.
oh yeah, IANAL etc etc.
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
And right there you touch on the key reason why the DMCA is probably one of the stupidest laws to have ever seen the light of day.
In any genuinely legitimate case where the DMCA could reasonably be applied, the person being charged is already guilty of conventional copyright infringement completely independant
The scary thing is... (Score:5, Informative)
This could set a precedent that means the end of:
TiVo mods
Linux on XBOX
Tinkering with Trusted Computing (!)
Pretty much modifying any hardware with basic protections
Re:The scary thing is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The scary thing is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. They have every right to charge you under the DMCA for modding with the intent of violating copyright...if you violated copyright.
Suppose there was a practical law that actually allowed medical marijuana. It's like if they pull over your car and f
That's exactly the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it doesn't. It makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection even if the copying would otherwise be illegal. Thus, the DMCA effecively allows content owners to EXTEND their copyright protection by adding copy protection.
If it's legal for me to copy something, it should be legal whether the something has copy protection or not.
Re: Linux on XBOX = illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The scary thing is... (Score:2)
The problem of course is that the legal system often looks past intent nowadays.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Rightly so these guys should be prosecuted.
-Rick
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint."
No sympathy, then.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where we all cheer, because the DMCA is being used appropriately.
I suspect this story only got a green light because it has that particular acronym, but seriously guys -- this is what the law is supposed to do, right?
Did this just get posted so we could laugh at these guys for being so blatant?
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right on the money, so to speak. Although the DMCA the legal stick that is going to be used to beat them senseless, it's not the modding that got these guys in trouble. If they hadn't been selling the games pre-installed on the hard drive with the modded Xbox, no one would have probably ever pursued this case.
Personally, I have no moral problem with people modding their Xboxes, but I do have moral issues with what these guys did. They deserve to be prosecuted and to go to jail, and more to the point, they deserve to be criticized by communities like the /. crowd for taking something clever and exciting (modding Xboxes) and deliberately turning it into something evil (mass copyright infringement for profit).
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Legally wrong yes... Legal standards are set for persons to do business in an agreed framework in which interstate commerce commences with the rule of copyright in order to promote arts and sciences. And they have broke the law.
But why is this morally wrong? They did not inflict suffering on any individual person. Maybe a corporation indirectly by removing theoretical profit, but under a
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
You bring up a good point that I hadn't even realised. I hadn't applied the prospect to copyright compared to theft. If I compare copyright infringement to theft of tangible goods I find that the theft of goods deprives a person or a group of persons of a thing, which is a
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Morally Wrong is just wrong. If it ain't yours, and you didn't pay for it, its wrong to take it.
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I mean, is the world a better place with a couple of xbox modders that violated copyright behind bars? I'd rather have them out there working and paying taxes rather then soak them up in jail.
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds right, but it doesn't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm an intelligent person, and I can potentially make tens of thousands of dollars by committing a crime, and the penalty for committing the crime is potentially losing the 10's of thousands of dollars and doing some community service....
Time to begin my criminal career!
But if the crime is going to prison, committing the crime is probably no longer attractive.
Penalties for crime can
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Only if convicted by a jury. But they might not accept a plea to just the 77 charges of piracy.
Then again, do we have all the facts? Did the agents provide reasonable proof of ownership of the 77 titles put on the drive, such as providing original discs to the vendor to have them installed on their behalf, rather than in their behalf as implied in the story?
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think someone is not worth the price, You don't buy it and shop for the competition, (competition not defined as people who "liberated" some more of the expensive products from their true owners) If its a good price, you take two. Simply saying it's too expensive is not a ticket to ride, Non-tangible goods or not.
"if the developers think that they should get more money for writing software that they receive from the sale of a hard disk with their code and hundreds of other game developer's code, then get the fuck out of the game development business!. Write code for someone who will pay your more for your services."
What do you mean, are you saying that, if the developers think they should get paid more than zero dollars, (silly rabbit) from some people who copied their creation without their permission they should... stop making games, and start programing something else you would probably advocate the mandatory free price tag for as well?
Since we are on slashdot, we need poor analogies to demonstrate my point as if you were a five year old. But with your... shall we say interesting world view, I'm going to say thats not a terribly bad place to start.
We are going to go on vacation. (Yay!) First we need a rental car, we want the Mustang, sadly we can afford the cavalier, so we haggle, which is to say, we pay them for the cavalier, then hot wire the Mustang (don't worry, we will return it, so really, its a non-tangible good, the "rental")
So finally we get to Florida in our 'loaned' car...
Your standing in line at Disney world, You come up to the front gates, and They expect 80 dollars from you for a day in the park (The nerve) you refuse, in a real market, you would go to six flags which is cheaper just with less rides. But in your wonderland... You find a guy out back who says he can let you into the park for the cost of opening the door to a service entrance. (because really, thats a free market, and we just haggled with Disney)
Where the hell did you get the notion that "haggling" means, whatever the buyer says = "that's the price that's fair and reasonable. " and that, all software should be sold for the price of some loser putting it on a hard drive.
"The game developers and distribution companies are just going to have to get used to working in the actual marketplace." What the hell does this even Mean?! What "Actual Marketplace" is this?! Some prince of thieves Walmart where all customers walk up to the front counter with a knife, name their price, then grit their teeth, tighten their grip on their saber, and then repeat their process in a more menacing tone?
It really, really hard to imagine viewing the world though as distorted and ridiculous scope as your own I'm not sure if you just some "free software (no, thats not a suggestion)" nut or if you really think that if someone can take it for free, that means thats now the price as if the people who create it don't own anything other than the physical DVD these games come on.
In conclusion, Get a clue, and uh.. Guess I will be seeing you in the paper for "haggling" one day.
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
If I want to buy something from you (such as your house and everything you own) I'll start at asking for it for free. You'll no doubt put a higher price on it, and we go from there. My preferred price doesn't seem to be fair, and probably your starting point won't be either.
If I say that I'll never pay more than $10 for everything you have, that doesn't make $10 a fair price.
Your point about game developers not having some sort of agreement with retailers is just utter garbage. Do you believe retailers sell games as a community service? They get a slice of the money, usually around 20% for new games I believe. That the retailer in this article pirated the games instead of trying for a profit shows that they're not only greedy, but stupid too.
You then go on to rant about game developers who should get out of the industry if they don't think rampant piracy is fair. That's... a novel point. I can't manage to twist my mind around it and still see how you could make that in any serious manner.
You don't understand game development, you don't understand business and you don't understand basic capitalism.
Well done!
Now please send me everything you own, and I promise to send you the fair and reasonable price of $10. And don't give me any of that moral, ethical or legal crap either!
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have been nice to see that information in the headline. Seems a little important to the story. I suppose we could debate the legality of 'modding' chips? Or would that be off-topic?
/shurg
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
DCMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Devil's in the details eh?
They sold the agent a bunch of pirated games, duh.
Or maybe the Mod was $265 and the pirated games were free so no one got hurt, right? There is no way you could say it was for convenance by this point.
Now if i could figure out why they can advertised remote car starters in a town that gives you ticket for leaving a running car unattended. How on earth is that not promoting an illegal activity?
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been newsworthy if ALL they were doing was installing a modchip and a large (empty) hard drive, and NOT pirating anything. If they were then charged under the DMCA, we could get excited about something finally being overturned for being blatantly evil.
I can't get worked up ove
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than to set precedent, of course. Where the corporations will start nailing more gray area cases, later on.
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Did you just ask why they brought theDigital Millenium Copyright Act into a copyright infringement case?
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Selling 77 unauthorized copies of software was illegal before the DMCA.
The only time we cheer for the DMCA is when we actually come to believe that it should be illegal to break encryption that was specifically designed to deprive honest customers of their fair use rights.
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. The DMCA is never used appropriately. I agree that they were wrong and what they did was clearly illegal but we have other laws than the DMCA to take care of that. The DMCA have no legitimate uses.
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Huh? Who needs the DMCA to go after these guys? This was illegal in 1985. Saying they were arrested for modding Xboxes and pirating software, is like saying some guy was arrested for owning a Jimi Hendrix CD (and a pound of marijuana).
And I've just gotten the strangest feeling of deja vu, like I've seen this story somewhere else before...
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
At the time, it was a jail sentence
Later it was vindication
The main reason Rosa Parks is so famous is that the NAACP hand-picked her case because she was a good two shoes. They had numerous opportunities to contest the law before she decided not to get up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks [wikipedia.org]
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
just becasue it's illegal - doesn't mean that it's the slightest bit wrong
Yes, yes it does. They were stealing games, there is no logic that can prove otherwise.
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
Someone isn't getting paid for a game they made(loss), and someone is getting it for free(gain).
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
Someone isn't getting paid for a game they made(loss)
By that definition, it's a loss even if noone buys the game because it's overpriced.
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
The loss is easy to define, they lost sales. You can argue that they might not have otherwise bought the games, but if that is true, why were they getting copies of them?
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:2)
A content creator deserves to be compensated for their creation,
I'm sure they do, but that's a lot different than saying they should have the right to sue and toss anyone in the slammer anyone who coppies stuff.
Re:Bzzt wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This is untrue. First, most authors are not compensated; their works are flops and have no economic value, as far as copyright goes. But secondly, authors have never inherently deserved compensation. Copyright is an artifical system intended to benefit the public. Authors might benefit as well, but it is not the objective of copyright to reward them any more than the objective of building a highway is to pay money to road crews.
In fact, even if copyright were intended to reward authors, it would be the worst imaginable way of achieving this. Most authors, as already pointed out, don't derive any benefit from copyright. Among the few who do, most of them don't derive enough for it to be worth it; they would have made more money doing something else. Only an astonishingly small number of authors make a good living as authors. If your intent was to help them, a more efficient system would be necessary. Direct subsidies would probably do well. That we do not do that, and never have done that, is a good indicator that compensation is not a goal of copyright.
that decision cannot be made for them
As it happens, it can. We can require authors to deposit copies of their works as a prerequisite for copyright. And we can cause their copyright to expire at a date that is most beneficial to the public, regardless of whether the author likes it or not.
In fact, we could even abolish copyright altogether, if we really wanted.
If you never wanted to/could afford to buy the content anyway, you have no inherit right to it in the first place.
Quite false. There is an inherent right to free speech, and this encompasses repeating what another has said. Copyright is a temporary imposition on this, but that's all. Someone who could never have afforded to buy a copy of Tom Sawyer has an inherent right to it. We gave Twain a limited, temporary right to bar that, but we took it away again as well.
The only thing there is no inherent right to is to cause authors to create and publish works in the first place. No one can make an author write a book, but if they do, they have to play by our rules if they want a copyright. They cannot assert an inherent right to control others' use of the work, especially for no better reason than that they happen to be the author.
However, I work for a software company. Copyright pays the bills. This business, and thousands like it (including publishers, tv / movie studios, etc) wouldn't bother opening up every morning if copyright law wasn't there to protect the fruits of our labor.
And I'm a copyright lawyer. And while many authors would choose to do something else if they were not so favorably treated by copyright law, there's nothing bad about that.
The goals of the public, and of copyright law, are not just to cause original works to be created, but to cause derivative works to be created, to cause publication to occur, and to cause works to be in the public domain as fast as possible, and as close to being in the public domain during the term as possible.
If a change to law that better accomplished those goals happened to result in a number of authors leaving the field, we would nevertheless be better off without them. Heck, some authors would never leave, even if they had no copyright at all.
guess what - copying is NOT stealing (Score:2)
http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/25/132
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147420&ci
Re:guess what - copying is NOT stealing (Score:2)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But where's the problem? (Score:2)
Rip-off your neighbour (Score:5, Insightful)
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.
Like I said on digg this morning when this was posted there, no wonder they were charged, and quite rightly too.
This is not a "Your rights online" story, it's a story about blatent copyright violation.
Re:Rip-off your neighbour (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SO WHAT!!! (Score:2)
AAARRGG Pirates! (Score:4, Funny)
Misleading summary (Score:2, Informative)
Read the article:
"During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint." (emphasis added)
Now, if they were charged for selling the modding and hard drives, it's a clear-cut abuse of the DMCA by industry and law enforcement. But they were allegedly selling 77 pir
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
By saying 77 "pirated" games, they are implying that the games were not bought, paid for, and original copies were included with the package.
If it turns out that 77 original copies of the 77 included games came as part of the package (used, new, or homebrew) then they are not technically "pirated". I
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
Re:Misleading summary (Score:2)
My common sense feeling is that the games were in fact pirated.
However, I have seen game stores BUY games from idiotic customers for no more than a few dollars per. If the store were to get rid of those games in that fashion, it costs them very little.
Also, if the console included 77 non-commercial games enabled to run on a modded Xbox, then they couldn't by definition BE pirated at all.
Let's imagine the following scenerio. A store has a bunch
Re:Misleading summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. "Pirated" is used synonymously with "copied". If you're putting them on the hard drive, you're copying them. Any copying is illegal, so they're pirated.
But you have no history of ownership for those 77 titles. Maybe the agents provided proof of ownership to entice the act of copying. Maybe the seller buys used games and sells them back cheap to make the modded box more interesting and get them as return customers for other titles at market prices
Nothing to this really (Score:5, Insightful)
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox, according to the criminal complaint.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
Actually, there is plenty to say (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd have a lot more sympathy for them if there weren't for the pirated games installed as part of the purchase. Real stupid move there.
No matter how you look at it, people are still up against hard time for simply copying and modding stuff. No, there is still plenty to say because, like as with most copyright related "crimes". These people are not criminals, and the punishment is WAY WAY out of line in relation to the supposed harm done to society.
Now if in addition they robbed a bank, and beat an old lady and left her for dead ... then I might have some sympathy, but then again that wouldn't be charged as a DMCA crime would it?
77 Games? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:77 Games? (Score:2)
Just out of curiousity, what good games does the PS2 or Gamecube have that the XBox doesn't?
Re:77 Games? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but they're all just kids' games.
I know we're all cheering the DMCA here... (Score:5, Insightful)
It still seems right to criticize the DMCA to me. It isn't necessary to get pirates but it does criminalize a whole range of activities that really shouldn't be illegal.
Re:I know we're all cheering the DMCA here... (Score:2)
Is 5 years appropriate? (Score:5, Insightful)
NeverEndingBillboard.com [neverendingbillboard.com]
Re:Is 5 years appropriate? (Score:2)
No prison, and the state could use the money. It sure beats filling up the prisons with useless bullshit.
still probably illegal (Score:5, Informative)
1. You need to get a hacked bios that lets you boot soemthing else besides the DVD drive
2. you need to run some sort of dashboard. (basically a menu manager on which programs to launch.
Since all of these are built with an piece of software that MS owns, and is not licensened to build "homebrew" software its still technically not legal to get this software. That is why this software is not availiable for blatent download, you have to do a little bit of digging.
Now ethically I have no problem with the abouve steps to lets say get xbox media center working (my favorite reason for my xbox). But I think the store selling the box with games is totally wrong and just blatent copyright infringement/theft, depending on the camp you talk to. People worked hard on the games, and they deserve to get paid, just like you deserve to get paid at your work for what you do.
Why is (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm intrested in what game programmers / creators think of the penalties that could be imposed. Would you prefer a large fine to jail time?
No need to invoke the DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright laws, together with the concept of Fair Use, are reasonable; the DMCA is a corporate-sponsored attack on Fair Use, and serves no other purpose.
Andy
Too bad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
During the investigation, undercover agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement paid $265 to have a modification chip, a hard drive and 77 pirated games installed on an Xbox
Even without the DMCA crap, these guys are screwed. Most likely the lawyers for the defendants will settle for a fine and a suspended sentence. Nothing will be tried, and the DMCA will continue to exist as a nice chilling spectre.
In Other ACME News... (Score:2, Funny)
Pirating bad, modding should be legal (Score:3, Insightful)
Now selling 77 games on the HDD is not a good thing, but being able to play a copy of a game comes handy sometimes.
E.G. I am the owner of the original game "Ghost recon Summit strike" NTSC but since I do no have Live I play on XBC or KAI.
Since I figured that the game is only compatible with the same system (NTSC vs NTSC and PAL vs PAL) I cannot play with my european buddies online unless I have a PAL version, and even if I buy a pal version I cannot play it in my unmodded NTSC Xbox. So I have a copy of the PAL game just for the purpose to be eble to play overseas.
But that is just one reason I own a modchip and why I refuse to buy a game 2 times. (UBI I love you guys, make the next GR playable all-over just like any other developers and I won't own an illegal copy I promise.
Now when it comes to game modding on consoles, ripping the game (whether you own it or steal it) is also a requirement (or to be able to make a custom DVD with the new files) .
Same goes with extra maps (without live).
But still this is just the game part, when you want to use your box as an AVI player, listen to online radio and etce..tc..tc
What is next? I buy a honda and there will be an eula that if I put on an extra exhaust pipe, or change the air filter I am modding illegally? Oh yeah, I circumvented the rev limiter because my bike moved like grandma's.... everyone does that
If it goes like this we will see computers with locks on it that only repairmen can open, and the police will come to you and check if your computer is still sealed, if not you pay $$$$ and go to jail.
A bit of info: I asked my local retailer for an unmodded Xbox. All I heard is : are you crazy? Why would you sell that here?
I mentioned it before, but here in Costa Rica a game goes for $80 for ps2/xbox while a copy goes for $5-$6.
Now which is selling better when a McDonalds worker makes around $200 a month ?
I personally order games used from Amazon or Ebay for like $15 a piece, but many people have no US shipping address here, and do not own a credit card, nor they want to pay for a game that's $80 and you are missing half the functionality as it is Xbox live only, as they barely have a dialup at home.
Just some inside look why piracy goes on here..... Well now returning to the LA story, I am sure those guys who bought these preloaded boxes made more than $200 a month, and I am sure I would be ashamed to get anything like thet in the US where you have $10 used games on storeshelves.
Oh, I saw ads last year around Christmas on TV advertising chipped consoles with 5 games included. I am 99% sure that those were copies too.
Re:Pirating bad, modding should be legal (Score:2)
Actually that is illegal in NSW, if it affects the noise certification. And if your exhaust doesn't have a sticker on it that says it is legally quiet, your bike will be defected even if it is not noisy.
Just Whose XBox is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just Whose XBox is it? (Score:3, Informative)
"Doctrine of First Sale", as you call it, allows you to resell the device. It does not allow you to do illegal things with the device. The people in question were using the modded XBox to illegally copy and
Re:Just Whose XBox is it? (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's NOT allowed by the law. Whether you agree with the DMCA or not, I don't see any wiggle room in the position that they broke it. The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms except in limited circumstances, none of which appear to apply. They circumvented the XBox's copyright protection mechanisms. Case closed.
It's not like the Lexma
Modding is ok with me. (Score:3, Funny)
What people don't want to hear (Score:2)
How can we RTFA when the link is bad? (Score:2)
The page you've requested cannot be found.
For a listing of our latest stories and features go to News.com.
Search News.com
Options
Stories from other sources
Stories from Reuters, the New York Times, and some additional sources are featured on CNET News.com for a limited amount of time. If you have encountered this File Not Found error message from accessing one of these sources, it is likely that the story is no longer available through CNET News.com.
For Reuters stories, visit BizT
+77 Pirated Games (Score:4, Insightful)
All I had to see was "Xbox Modders Charged Under DMCA", and I KNEW that they'd loaded pirated games on a HD, and THAT was mostly what they were getting busted for.
That is both a sad comment on the community of profiteering xbox modders, and a sad commentary on the state of
Ugh! Terrible headline! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not So Different (Score:3, Funny)
Harsh punishment for minor offence (Score:5, Interesting)
During the frirst all-China empire Qin, legalist [wikipedia.org] Li Si [wikipedia.org] held a great power and established harhs penalty for any minor crime. A group of peasants was drafted for labor service. Heavy rains made his group late in reporting for duty. Knowing they would be killed for this offense, the group members decided they had nothing to lose and became an outlaw band. Soon their ranks swelled with thousands of malcontents, making the band of outlaws a sizeable force. Similar uprisings took place simultaneously in other parts of the empire, and empire Qin collapsed.
reference here [east-asian-history.net]
Re:Silly Law (Score:3, Funny)
Nope!
Re:Silly Law (Score:2)
Nope!
You wish.
The Immigration folks, as well as those in Customs, are now part of the Department of Homeland Security. So, you see this is about fighting the terrorists.
Re:Silly Law (Score:5, Funny)
Gamers and people who listen to music are terrorists in the eyes of the ??AA.
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
From TFA:
From the language, the first part of the charge sounds like they're talking about the XBox mod (...a technology used to circumvent a copyright protection system...), wh
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
If you're using it to run linux, it doesn't really fit that definition, and I haven't seen Microsoft go after a modder here in the US where there weren't pirated games included in the sale.
Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
a mod chip becomes a copyright protection circumvention device when that's what you use it for.
But will that be the standard the DMCA uses? Or will it be more like "a mod chip becomes a copyright protection circumvention device when that's what you can use it for."?
That's why this case is so troubling...it has the potential to become a very bad precedent, and ruin mod-chipping for everyone. It doesn't help that these jerks were also distributing pirated games, making the case a virtual slam-dunk and cementing the 'mod-chipping == piracy' stereotype in the minds of everyone concerned.
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
Well, you're absolutely correct on this one. It can go one of two ways. But if it gets the "legs" we all fear, one more right goes down the toilet and possibly gives steam to the anti-analog recording device [digitalconsumer.org] trouble that's been brewing lately.
Re:Too Bad (Score:2)
Of course, congress could change this via legislation, but I don't see anything too scary about this specific case - no more so than other cases where both piracy and mod chips have been involved.
Re:Too Bad (Score:3, Informative)
I'm feeling too lazy right now to dig up my copy yet again, but -- if memory serves, there are two conditions, either of which suffices.
The first is that the item or service is specifically intended for circumventing a digital access protection measure.
The second is that the item or service is marketed or advertised for circumventing a digital access protection measure.
Thus, "could" is not sufficient, in the general case. That 'could' would have to be strongly indicative that the i
Re:"77 pirated games installed." (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If (Score:2)
My ad muncher kills whatever ad is being served up (in CSS i assume) as part of the default filter set, so I clicked the link, but didn't see the advert.
It's not like subscribers get special early posting privileges (they don't... right?) The only benefit is that they have the pleasure of
If it makes more money than the paid subscriptions, then by all means, continue the day pass. Otherwise, Slashdot's Over Lords are taking away something special from the people wh
Re:This is what its supposed to do (Score:3, Insightful)
The real story is that these people were violating laws against selling pirated s
Re:Why conspiring? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but perhaps the best way for the prosecuters to cast the net over all of them at once was to use the "conspiracy" argument. Maybe a bit like (1)
Re:Other mods ok? (Score:3, Funny)
Only if you steal the pipes without paying for them. If you put stolen pipes on a ride that you have paid for, then the law of man has been broken.
If you pay for the pipes, then only the law of good taste has been broken.