Man May Face 10 Years in Prison for Modding an Xbox
- Thread starter Scott Bullock
- Start date
So companies introduce anti consumer "features" such as region locks and IP locks. When consumers remove those anti consumer features, they get jailed. I see.
Sometimes I have a hard time regarding this whole perspective toward piracy.
Are game developers really dense enough to think that by stopping people from pirating their games it will let them keep more money or lead to more sales? Are they under the assumption that if the pirated game wasn't available that the pirates WOULD buy it?
Kinda naive.
Just because you take away the pirated copies doesn't mean more people are going to buy your game.
Are game developers really dense enough to think that by stopping people from pirating their games it will let them keep more money or lead to more sales? Are they under the assumption that if the pirated game wasn't available that the pirates WOULD buy it?
Kinda naive.
Just because you take away the pirated copies doesn't mean more people are going to buy your game.
No, you're indicted when you're accused of breaking the law. That's the point of trials, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thingJiraiya72 said:
To quote the linked Wired article from the OPmindlesspuppet said:
So there you go.
This is me laughing.Psydney said:
How can you cock up a prosecution so badly that the presiding judge reverses his decisions on what grounds he will let the defence base their case? That's a BIG judicial "fuck you guys".
It's the fact he was charging money for a service that condoned/encourage pirating and related activities. You can't do that, its like charging money for pirated copies of a movie.mindlesspuppet said:
It's like charging a person for a gun: because it has the potential to kill.
As long as the person never sold pirated games, this shouldn't even be a case.
As long as the person never sold pirated games, this shouldn't even be a case.
Sure did. The article said can be used to play pirated games - 'can' being the keyword. It also mentioned homebrew games. The are other reasons too, some people may simply wish to run Linux on their 360. Hell, people might just want to play copies of games they do infact own (not illegal).Canid117 said:
Did you read the Wiki page or just link it? There's nothing in it even remotely similar to these circumstances that would constitute this as being illegal.ColdStorage said:
Actually that's not true. Modifying intellectual property for commercial use is illegal. You could try to argue that he was profiting off of modded 360, but there's a difference here. He was charging for his services, similar in the way that a mechanic would. Had he been stockpiling modded 360s and selling them as his own product, then you'd be right. This is not the case.zxBARRICADExz said:
It's not even remotely close to the same thing... At all.Mezmer said:
Another very popular use for modifying consoles that these articles make no mention of is so they can play games that aren't compatible with their region of hardware. This is for those people who want to import games from Japan and whatnot that do not see a North American release.
Again, there are plenty of legit reasons to mod a 360. Because these legit purposes exist, it is impossible to say it was for piracy's sake.
A mechanic is allowed to change the headers in a car, slap on a turbo charger, etc. However, the mechanic is not responsible if the driver chooses to speed excessively. Hell, a mechanic can throw straight pipes on a car (which aren't street legal), and again, is at no fault if the driver gets caught with them.
If you buy a product, you are allowed to do what you wish with that product as long as it remains for personal use. If playing pirated games was the only thing such a mod enable, they might have a case. This is almost exactly the same as the iphone jailbreak mentioned in the article, the judge is just too inept to realize it because the 360 serves a different purpose.
Wha, since when? Does that mean using trainers with my single player games is illegal? Does that mean the makers of simple native trainer for the PC version of GTA IV should be in jail? I won't take sides on the issue in this article, but this guy i'm quoting is just plain wrong.zxBARRICADExz said:
The judicial system has been bought out, apparently.Arkhangelsk said:
This article makes me sad.
Sums up my sentiments exactly. Heaven forbid anyone mod a bloody video game console and pirate a $60 game. Lord knows that is such a sin compared to murder, rape, grand theft, racketeering... oh wait a minute. Even the banks and corporations of the U.S. get away with ruining thousands of people's lives without so much as a cut to their pension, but again, heaven forbid that anyone touch their bottom line.Arkhangelsk said:
While Piracy is wrong, inordinate punishment is blatantly against the supposed values of the U.S. justice system.
It's quite simple, if you raped someone, you don't possibly affect the profit margins of a multi million dollar company, therefore in legal terms it's not as important as software piracy.Arkhangelsk said:
That was a horrible thing to type, but in legal terms that's how it is. Every crime needs a dollar value assigned to it or it's not so important. You need to prove how much an action lost you in dollars or it's almost not a crime.
I imagine if you sexually assaulted the wife or daughter of a CEO of a huge corporation, you'd end up on Death Row, due to the army of highly paid and highly skilled lawyers. Do it to a poor person, and even if you're found guilty, you're looking at less than someone who adjusted a games machine to possibly play some discs that might have been copies of games that might have been downloaded illegally.
This is why if you want that videogame and you can't afford it kids, whatever you do, don't pirate! Go steal it from a store instead, shoplifting penalties are nothing like as harsh
If I had my way, I'd not only hand over healthcare to be a public, tax paid service, I'd also make lawyers the same. Pay them well, it's a complex job, but you just get one, no hiring a top fleet of them for your case just because you're rich. Money shouldn't come into guilty or innocent. After all, the police are public servants, and that seems to be accepted.
It is a travesty of the legal system that this should even be possible. Unfortunately he did break a law in performing the modification. The DMCA specifically prohibits any act which circumvents copy protection.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a_A
Yet another reason the DMCA should be overturned. Under it we no longer own, and therefore have he right to modify or use however we see fit, the hardware which purchase.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html#a_A
Yet another reason the DMCA should be overturned. Under it we no longer own, and therefore have he right to modify or use however we see fit, the hardware which purchase.
To those above who blindly follow laws the same way some follow god ("They Am"), please remember 4th grade Social Studies. If having trouble recalling one's long lost youth see below:
The three systems of the government were created in such a fashion that they can check and balance one another. If for example the legislative branch makes a law so restrictive, backward, illogical, and infringing, then the judicial branch may be given the opportunity to deliberate on this law and decide the proper meaning of it. They may even be so bold as to change the law completely. This however is reserved for our highest court.
Now that the lesson is complete; check your posts again and ask yourself why it may be beneficial to bring such cases (that BLATANTLY break the law) to the court.
To those attempting to discern the proper length of sentence for such a crime in order to deter it: Murder still occurs in states that use the death penalty. No I do not have exact stats for this (and I apologize if i get flamed), but even the most extreme penalty known to the legal system is not a strong enough deterrent.
The three systems of the government were created in such a fashion that they can check and balance one another. If for example the legislative branch makes a law so restrictive, backward, illogical, and infringing, then the judicial branch may be given the opportunity to deliberate on this law and decide the proper meaning of it. They may even be so bold as to change the law completely. This however is reserved for our highest court.
Now that the lesson is complete; check your posts again and ask yourself why it may be beneficial to bring such cases (that BLATANTLY break the law) to the court.
To those attempting to discern the proper length of sentence for such a crime in order to deter it: Murder still occurs in states that use the death penalty. No I do not have exact stats for this (and I apologize if i get flamed), but even the most extreme penalty known to the legal system is not a strong enough deterrent.
That first paragraph made me vomit on the inside. God, I sometimes hate corporations, even if I am a capitalist.SenseOfTumour said:It's quite simple, if you raped someone, you don't possibly affect the profit margins of a multi million dollar company, therefore in legal terms it's not as important as software piracy.Arkhangelsk said:
That was a horrible thing to type, but in legal terms that's how it is. Every crime needs a dollar value assigned to it or it's not so important. You need to prove how much an action lost you in dollars or it's almost not a crime.
I imagine if you sexually assaulted the wife or daughter of a CEO of a huge corporation, you'd end up on Death Row, due to the army of highly paid and highly skilled lawyers. Do it to a poor person, and even if you're found guilty, you're looking at less than someone who adjusted a games machine to possibly play some discs that might have been copies of games that might have been downloaded illegally.
This is why if you want that videogame and you can't afford it kids, whatever you do, don't pirate! Go steal it from a store instead, shoplifting penalties are nothing like as harsh
If I had my way, I'd not only hand over healthcare to be a public, tax paid service, I'd also make lawyers the same. Pay them well, it's a complex job, but you just get one, no hiring a top fleet of them for your case just because you're rich. Money shouldn't come into guilty or innocent. After all, the police are public servants, and that seems to be accepted.
I could understand why this would happen. But I find it troubling that even when he has such a logically strong defense, but the judge denies it anyway. It is exactly like jailbreaking the iPhone, and the modding itself is in fact without legal issue in terms of copyright.
"well removing your ability to pirate means you wont pirate"bahumat42 said:
Are you saying this sets a legal precedent for my PC being confiscated and replaced with one loaded with government mandated DRM?!?! Just so that mega corporations can control exactly how their customers use their goods and services? This goes FAR beyond piracy, this means you can't change anything on a product that YOU OWN! It's your own damn games console, the US Military themselves took hundreds of Playstation 3 consoles for non-gaming purposes.
"But more to the point there charging a guy WHO IS MAKING MONEY OFF OF IT."
I'm sorry but I don't buy that as I see it as merely an anti-capitalist argument.
A crime is illegal whether you were paid to do it as a mercenary or it was your own evil motivations, money means nothing but motivation, in this case I think still extremely separate from the actual act. Motivation should be a factor in sentencing, not conviction. Yes there are laws against selling certain things, but that is not the legal argument here.
I am not in favour of piracy but not as much as I am against this unholy alliance of mega-corporations and criminal prosecution that do nothing but to undermine and exploit the consumer.
There are so many many things about the Xbox 360 that annoy the hell out of me, the difficulty in backing up data, moving data like ripped DVDs to play on the system, etc.
This sets a precedent that it is acceptable to mod certain electronic devices yet not others, even though the distinctions are trivial in practice, that is not just.
