Prosecutors Drop Charges in Xbox 360 Modding Trial

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Prosecutors Drop Charges in Xbox 360 Modding Trial



Defendant Matthew Crippen, facing prison for modding Xbox 360 consoles, is walking free after the government abandoned its case.

This has been an interesting week for Matthew Crippen, a 28-year-old resident of Southern California. Yesterday, we reported that Crippen could torn the prosecution a new one [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105773-Man-May-Face-10-Years-in-Prison-for-Modding-an-Xbox] regarding some aspects of their case - but the government had elected to proceed with its case nonetheless.

That decision to proceed was abruptly reversed today, and Matthew Crippen is a free man. According to Wired [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/], prosecutor Allen Chiu told the judge that the government had "decided to dismiss the indictment ... based on fairness and justice" shortly before the jury was to be seated on the third day of trial.

The Crippen trial was the first jury trial testing how the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - which make it a crime to physically alter hardware to circumvent copyright protection - apply to videogame consoles.

Unfortunately for pirates, modders, and anti-DMCA activists, it's unclear if the dismissal of the case will actually set any legal precedent against the DMCA. From what I understand, the prosecution's abrupt abandonment based on "fairness and justice" had nothing to do with any change of heart regarding the DMCA provisions, but because the case was shoddily built on questionable legal grounds.

The prosecution's first witness, Tony Rosario, was an Entertainment Software Association agent who purchased Crippen's modding services, and videotaped him in the act. This was already a dubious matter - and one that the judge had previously chewed the prosecution out over [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105799-Judge-Berates-Prosecution-in-Xbox-Modding-Trial] - but in his testimony, Rosario said that Crippen tested that the modification worked by inserting a pirated game into the system. However, the pre-trial reports and sworn declarations earlier filed by Rosario included no mention of this at all.

Presumably, Rosario's statement was an attempt to convince jurors that Crippen knew that what he was doing was against the law - a key question in order to establish guilt. It's certainly possible that Crippen did know that he was breaking the law and that he did in fact insert a pirated game, and that Rosario's pre-trial briefs simply neglected to mention this (whether it is likely, however, is another matter entirely). Either way, defense attorney Callie Steele objected to the matter, sending the whole case crashing to the ground.

Chiu claimed that Rosario had only just recalled the matter on Sunday - too late for it to be included in pre-trial filings - and admitted that the prosecution should have forwarded it to the defense right away. However, given that the prosecution had made grievous errors in the handling of the case, the damage had been done, and the government dropped all charges.

But how would the jury have ruled, anyway? Paul Dietz, a 27-year-old actor admits that - based on the single day of testimony that the jury had heard - he "probably would have acquitted." On the other hand Jerry Griffin, a 63-year-old trial attorney, said that Microsoft had the right to protect its proprietary information.

This may not be a victory for DMCA activists - rest assured that the government will try to build a more legally sound case the next time this sort of thing goes to court. That said, it's certainly a victory for Matthew Crippen. "It still has not hit me yet," Crippen told press outside the court shortly after the dismissal. He plans on returning to Cal State Fullerton to get his liberal arts degree.

(Wired [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/crippen-dismissed/])

Permalink
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
The case itself wasn't solid and like the article stated, they used certain questionable methods to catch him.

Either way, he can walk away without any charges against him, he should learn from the experience and be more legit in the future.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
AND JUSTICE IS SERVED!
Faith in humanity: +1
Thank you!

If jail breaking your crappy iproduct is legal then there is no reason why modding your xbox should not be. As for him testing with a "pirated" game, how do they know it was not a legal back up of a game he already owned?

Its about fucking time that justice over ruled the wishes of the industry.

Okay okay, so maybe justice was not actually served but the dude got off free and I am content with that.
Even so though, I do kind of wish it had ran its course and that the dude had won just so puture modders could point to this moment and be like "fuck you!"
Still, it brought some interesting questions to the limelight so lets just hope the next case is more interesting.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Grilled Cheesus said:
AND JUSTICE IS SERVED!
Faith in humanity: +1
Thank you!

If jail breaking your crappy iproduct is legal then there is no reason why modding your xbox should not be. As for him testing with a "pirated" game, how do they know it was not a legal back up of a game he already owned?

Its about fucking time that justice over ruled the wishes of the industry.

Okay okay, so maybe justice was not actually served but the dude got off free and I am content with that.
Even so though, I do kind of wish it had ran its course and that the dude had won just so puture modders could point to this moment and be like "fuck you!"
Still, it brought some interesting questions to the limelight so lets just hope the next case is more interesting.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, they probably just dismissed the case themselves because they saw their chances waning of getting a beneficial ruling out of it (with a seemingly "biased judge") creating a precedent for more cases and general fearmongering.

They will probably try again in a few months/years, letting this go through would have only damaged their chances for success later.
 

TaboriHK

New member
Sep 15, 2008
811
0
0
Sounds to me like the government backed out so that they don't accidentally set a lenient precedent. Charming.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
the lawyers did the only thing they really could do - if they pursued the case and lost, then that would pretty much destroy the DMCA. the DMCA is just the starting point of the law - it's upto jurors and judges to pontificate over how it applies in the real world, and if the first ever trial based on the act was an acquittal, that would really cause precedents problems for the act and future trials.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Altorin said:
the lawyers did the only thing they really could do - if they pursued the case and lost, then that would pretty much destroy the DMCA. the DMCA is just the starting point of the law - it's upto jurors and judges to pontificate over how it applies in the real world, and if the first ever trial based on the act was an acquittal, that would really cause precedents problems for the act and future trials.
The precedent for jailbreaking smart phones has been set and it's only a matter of time before that applies to other types of electronic devices.
 

SpaceMedarotterX

New member
Jun 24, 2010
456
0
0
As others have said this was really the best course of action. The moment the Judge slammed them for 30 straight minutes they knew they were on shaky grounds.

If they went forwards with the case and lost, there would be a huge loss of money, even bigger than what has already been sunk into it, not to mention credibility and setting a precedent.

By backing out they learned from there mistakes of this case, don't set a precedent, and the next case they can destroy the opposition.


It's a tactical retreat honestly.
 

BenzSmoke

New member
Nov 1, 2009
760
0
0
I don't see why messing with the product you payed for angers the manufacturers. It belongs to you.
It's like a car manufacturer complaining about you putting a new engine in your car.

Fighting pirated games is one thing. Telling people not to mess with their own property is another.

Edit: It appears I was wrong and when you buy an XBox it's technically not your property.
So I payed over two hundred dollars to borrow my game system?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
I think the judge still has to answer for all the flame wars spirited debates this case sparked off on Escapist forums and across the internet in general.

Still, them dropping the case is GOOD. I think this shows how vulnerable that side of the argument feels that they don't even dare take it to trial to spite going this far already.

I think this does set a precedent of sorts... by the fact it so obviously tries to avoid legal precedent.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
But how would the jury have ruled, anyway? Paul Dietz, a 27-year-old actor admits that - based on the single day of testimony that the jury had heard - he "probably would have acquitted." On the other hand Jerry Griffin, a 63-year-old trial attorney, said that Microsoft had the right to protect its proprietary information.


Permalink[/quote]


this bit right here is probibly the most heatening statment in the whole piece. It shows( or at least I hope) that this generation of people wont put up with tis kind of crap from the government and that the people that would are going to be dead in the next 2 decades
 

Fumbleumble

New member
Oct 17, 2010
341
0
0
They had a TRIAL ATTORNEY on the jury?

Is this regular practice in the states?

As far as I understand it, that kind of practice is considered a conflict of interest in the UK to have members of the legal establishment sit in as part of a deciding jury, I could be wrong.. and if I am, please correct me.. it just sounds pretty bad.

(I'm interested in a REAL answer to this.. so, no supposition please, if you don't actually 'know', then any answer you give isn't going to help.)

Anyway.. I certainly give kudos to the Judge for being so upstanding about this, it wasn't something I expected from the US judicial system when corporate entities are involved.
 

Fumbleumble

New member
Oct 17, 2010
341
0
0
BenzSmoke said:
I don't see why messing with the product you payed for angers the manufacturers. It belongs to you.
It's like a car manufacturer complaining about you putting a new engine in your car.

Fighting pirated games is one thing. Telling people not to mess with their own property is another.
Unfortunately as the law stands, even if you have 'bought' it you only actually have a licence to 'use' it with in the bounds of the terms the maker puts out.. in so far as console hardware is involved... It doesn't actually 'belong' to you as the word is understood. :<
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
Fumbleumble said:
They had a TRIAL ATTORNEY on the jury?

Is this regular practice in the states?

As far as I understand it, that kind of practice is considered a conflict of interest in the UK to have members of the legal establishment sit in as part of a deciding jury, I could be wrong.. and if I am, please correct me.. it just sounds pretty bad.

(I'm interested in a REAL answer to this.. so, no supposition please, if you don't actually 'know', then any answer you give isn't going to help.)

Anyway.. I certainly give kudos to the Judge for being so upstanding about this, it wasn't something I expected from the US judicial system when corporate entities are involved.
As long as there was no particular conflict of interest regarding any of the parties involved, there's no reason why he couldn't be there. Going into law doesn't suddenly exempt oneself from jury duty.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys need to agree on jurors, so if either side thought there would have been a conflict he wouldn't have been allowed.
 

Kurokami

New member
Feb 23, 2009
2,352
0
0
BenzSmoke said:
I don't see why messing with the product you payed for angers the manufacturers. It belongs to you.
It's like a car manufacturer complaining about you putting a new engine in your car.

Fighting pirated games is one thing. Telling people not to mess with their own property is another.
They probably saw it as their own IP, I guess its like taking WoW in a way and modding it to be a singleplayer game to sell it.

At least that example makes sense at the moment, I'm f**king tired.

I agree though, this case is pretty bullshit, and modding shouldn't be pursued against so much as Pirating, if they had taken a list of his customers and looked to see what they're up to, that'd be fine imo.
 

Fumbleumble

New member
Oct 17, 2010
341
0
0
John Funk said:
Fumbleumble said:
They had a TRIAL ATTORNEY on the jury?

Is this regular practice in the states?

As far as I understand it, that kind of practice is considered a conflict of interest in the UK to have members of the legal establishment sit in as part of a deciding jury, I could be wrong.. and if I am, please correct me.. it just sounds pretty bad.

(I'm interested in a REAL answer to this.. so, no supposition please, if you don't actually 'know', then any answer you give isn't going to help.)

Anyway.. I certainly give kudos to the Judge for being so upstanding about this, it wasn't something I expected from the US judicial system when corporate entities are involved.
As long as there was no particular conflict of interest regarding any of the parties involved, there's no reason why he couldn't be there. Going into law doesn't suddenly exempt oneself from jury duty.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys need to agree on jurors, so if either side thought there would have been a conflict he wouldn't have been allowed.
Thanks for the answer... but WOW, that's a bit of an eye opener. The legal system is even worse that I thought :(
 

XT inc

New member
Jul 29, 2009
992
0
0
Grilled Cheesus said:
As for him testing with a "pirated" game, how do they know it was not a legal back up of a game he already owned?
Yeah I don't think there is such a thing as legal back up copies for games.

Good to know government has the time and money to help big business chase down people costing them money.