Government Tries to Block Expert Testimony in Mod Chip Case

[Turtleboy1017]

He seems to have broken the law.

I hope the accused -- if guilty -- is punished as such.

"As such"? I believe the objection is more to the severity of his punishment with regards to the crime.

Is a simple solution: don't break the law.

If you have ever jaywalked, littered, sped in your car, downloaded an mp3 file without paying some sort of cash fee, gambled with your friends, carried a knife with a blade over 2 inches long in public, taken pens or other office supplies from your job or school, or passed someone in front of a school zone in your car, you are a massive hypocrite.

Don't break the law, but only if you know you can't get away with it is what you're trying to say. 3 years for something as trivial as installing a mod chip is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of in a while.

 

[llafnwod]

Eh. You mean suck it up? It's hard to tell what your argument is here. From what you've said, it seems to be that any punishment is acceptable and permissable if the receiving party has done anything wrong, but there are all sorts of ad absurdum arguments I could make against this if I weren't already pretty convinced that you don't actually care and are just making yourself out to be a jaded badass, so I guess I'll stop now.

No. I meant sucked in - to him.

If he broke the law, he deserves the punishment. You can't expect to break the law and not do the time. If the punishment for murder was life in prison, you can't turn around and argue it's too harsh after you've murdered someone. It doesn't matter how unjust the punishment is - if you do the crime, you will be punished accordingly.

I'm not saying if the punishment suits the crime he is accused of. I'm saying I hope he is punished to the full extent of the law he broke.

The two bolded statements are what I'm talking about. What I'm arguing is that what is the case is not always the same as what should be the case. I am fully aware that the punishment he is facing under the law is under the law. My problem is that you haven't said a word about why this is an fitting punishment for the crime, and that you've instead been arguing that it doesn't matter if it's fitting or not because what he did was against the law. This is a circular argument.

Jaded bad-ass? I'm sure that says more of how you see me than I myself.

Well, yes, but not quite in the way you're implying.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

He seems to have broken the law.

I hope the accused -- if guilty -- is punished as such.

There is just one little problem here...

I do believe there exist mod chips that are only designed to circumvent the region lockout of a console. Nothing piracy related can be done with such a mod chip, it's essentially the hardware form of a Freeloader disk (which, for some batshit reason, companies seem to be blocking). Regardless of if this man is using a mod chip that allows the use of pirated games, or one of these region free mod chips, if he's found guilty, it effectively stops a simple method of importing video games.

I believe this is wrong. Just as we are free to import films and music, we should be free to use any legal method in order to play imported games. Not all of us have the space, or the income, to buy multiple copies of the same hardware, just because there's a slight change in the region encoding that says "THOU SHALT ONLY PLAY PAL GAMES!" This is why I like the PS3, as Sony has said "Fuck that" and made the PS3 region free for all PS3 games. It's why I dislike Nintendo's decision to place region encoding on the DSi, and would rather buy a regular DS over it.

Yes, allowing the use of mod chips makes it easier for pirates. But in no way should it be outlawed just because a bunch of twats decide to take advantage of it.

Region code exists for a reason.

Don't like it? Tough.

It's the companies right.

And we have the right to ignore that code. If we didn't, there wouldn't be the hundreds of thousands of region free DVD players in existence.

The device he modified was not region free.

It's very simple, sweetie.

Technically, every single Freeloader disk that exists circumvents region lockouts on non-region free devices through a form of software modification. Please explain why these are not banned.

Further, there is a case of if his act is allowed under Fair Use laws. Last I checked, Fair Use laws take precedence.

Fair use laws are for education and criticism.

Please don't quote me if you don't understand what it is you are arguing.

And my point about the Freeloader disks?

They don't modify the machine.

Now, as I said: please don't quote me if you don't know what you're talking about.

As I said, they alter software in the machine, and are a form of softmodding. I'd like to point to U.S. Copyright law here, specifically § 1201(a)(1)(A), "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Now. The question is, are regional lockout schemes considered copyright protection systems? If they are, then the Freeloader series of boot disks should be banned. The fact that they're not, however, raises questions over the legality of a hardware form of a Freeloader.

*EDIT* In fact, no, it goes further than that. If regional lockout schemes are included under § 1201(a)(1)(A), then that means all attempts to remove or circumvent region encoding from products, successful or not, should have been cracked down on. This means that every single region free DVD player in existence should have been recalled and the creators (which include technological giants), should be charged appropriately.

 

[llafnwod]

He broke the law.

I don't care if it is a fitting punishment or not.

He did the crime and now faces the time that is associated with breaking that law.

If you want to campaign for a shorter prison sentence for this crime, go ahead. I just don't care.

That's... exactly what I'm saying. You've been arguing a point that was never actually made. The objection made in the original article was that the sentence the man faces is draconian, not that he didn't break the law or even that he did nothing wrong. If someone says they should let him off and you want to argue against jury nullification, fine. But if you don't care about a certain subject matter, you aren't contributing much by saying so. Maybe I just overestimated your pretensions, and you just wanted to say you didn't care without any further implications. In which case, my bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

America can be quite draconian for the land of the free...

Psssh. We ditched that years ago. Now we're America: This space for rent.

 

[Super Toast]

Modding consoles = Serious Business.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

SNIPPY

Like I just said: they don't modify the hardware. He did. Very simple, sweetie.

Oh no, in his case, I agree, he doesn't have the law on his side. But I'm not arguing in favour of his case.

What I am going after is if using a modchip that does only touch region lockout software is legal or not, and if his verdict will affect that. This depends on if the consumer has a right to (a) use the hardware in any way they see fit, as long as it doesn't go against the manufacturer's copyright, and (b) circumvent regional lockout systems.

§ 1201(a)(1)(A) doesn't make it clear on if regional lockout systems are included in this, it simply says "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". This should take effect whether or not you modify the actual hardware itself, or just the software. However, as there is a whole horde of DVD players that circumvent the regional lockout systems on a DVD, and the Freeloader series of boot disks (and other similar products), I'm going to have to conclude that regional lockout systems aren't included in § 1201(a)(1)(A). This means that you should at least have the right to softmod a piece of technology to circumvent regional lockout, so point (b) is taken care of. (a), however, is still on the table.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I have to agree with the prosecution that Huang's testimony is irrelevant. If it's against the law, it's against the law. And "it shouldn't be against the law" isn't really a defense. It's not the job of that court to change the law anyway, it's just to hear the case based on what the law currently is and decide if the defendant did indeed break it. The sentence is ridiculous though, the defendant should try to get a reduced sentence by pleading guilty instead of trying that pointless "but it shouldn't be a crime!" defense.

Actually it is a defense as the judge can overturn a law if it is found to be unconstitutional. Also there is the matter of legal precedent wherein a judge makes a ruling such as "Installing mod chips is not a violation of the DMCA" and establishes mod-chips as an exemption to the DMCA.

 

[Mortons4ck]

"It shouldn't be against the law" can be a great defense. That's how a lot of things have been changed. I mean, Brown Vs. Board of Education pretty much used this defense.

I don't think Brown v. Board of Education is the best example. The whole deal with that case was to overturn the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling on the grounds that it was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. They argued that "separate but equal" was against the constitution, not that it should be against the constitution.

If Huang and the defense were arguing that the DMCA does allow for exceptions, the argument might have some merit. However, they're arguing that DMCA should allow for exceptions.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

after installing mod chips in Xbox 360 consoles for undercover agents belonging to the Entertainment Software Association and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

So....he helped the government and then the government fucked him up? :O im confused....why is everybody ignoring the fact WHO he modded for!

It was a sting...

Oooh....now i get it. hah i misunderstood
Well duuh......F him then

 

[Wintermoot]

wow that,s pretty harsh for messing around with YOUR OWN console shouldnt the governemnt do important stuff like catching terrorists or something like that?

 

[Asehujiko]

So basically: A government agent tells him to mod his xbox.

He agrees, it's piracy and he gets a massive jail sentence.
He declines, it's treason and he gets a massive jail sentence.

Why does the us hate it's own citizens?

 

[JDKJ]

Perhaps it's a distinction without any meaningful difference but it's not 3 years for a single count of circumvention. It's a maximum of 3 years on 2 counts of circumvention (1.5 years on each count) and, given that the financial gain at issue is a trifling $60-80 a pop, I doubt the court will stack the sentences if the defendant is found guilty on both counts. Even in the worst case scenario, it's highly unlikely that the defendant will receive anywhere near the maximum permissible sentence of 3 years.

 

[Cheefa_Da_Reefa]

after installing mod chips in Xbox 360 consoles for undercover agents belonging to the Entertainment Software Association and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

So....he helped the government and then the government fucked him up? :O im confused....why is everybody ignoring the fact WHO he modded for!

It was a sting...

a sting? lol i wonder how much of our tax dollars went into catching this CRIMINAL i mean u know we let murders and rapist walk but not this guy for modding a 360! ftw!

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Speaking as someone who really doesn't want to face any more aimbots and wallhacks than are already present, I think that if you can't chip it yourself then you likely don't have the understanding or maturity to use a chipped console responsibly... and I'm sick unto death of cheaters.

So I'm not exactly sympathetic with the defendant or the intended testimony of his expert witness.

-- Steve

 

[ace_of_something]

Because of a similar case here I had to attend a class on these laws (and other digital copyright laws)

Seriously people he's not modding them to rob the rich and feed the poor. He's modding them to steal games. Next time you beat a game look at the credits, THOSE are the people not getting paid for the game they worked hard on for months or YEARS.

In it's most basic explanation the law is, if you make something that can make piracy easier (which is theft by taking: a felony in most states) it's illegal. 3 years is a maximum sentence and unless he has a history of this even the most bias judge would have a hard time justifying maximum sentence. If he pleads he can get as little as 6 months in a minimum or medium classification facility and probably only serve half of it assuming he doesn't act the fool in jail. Federal cases don't have good time: my bad.

It's illegal for a reason because it fucks with the free market and fucks with peoples jobs.