Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Federal Agents Raid Homes for Modchips

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Aug 02, 2007 06:56 AM
from the throw-away-the-key dept.
Security Entertainment Games
Lunatrik writes "Invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, Federal Custom's Agents have raided over 30 homes and businesses looking to confiscate so-called 'mod chips', or other devices that allow the playback of pirated video games. This raises an important question: Are legitimate backup copies of a piece of software you own illegal under the DMCA?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Games: Mod Chip Raids In Perspective 186 comments
GamePolitics has extensive coverage on the aftermath of this past week's Federal raids on suspected modchippers. There were numerous negative reactions to the action here on the site, and your comments were not alone. Many commenters at the site Dvorak Uncensored expressed similar frustration and disbelief at the federal government's priorities. As stated on the site's original post: "Are you kidding me? With drug dealers everywhere, murder, porous borders, terrorism the Feds are concerned about game mods?? Holy crap. Next I supposed they will be cracking heads over unlocked phones. Great." Meanwhile, one of the raided men is now without any electronics whatsoever as a result of the search and seizure, and feeling very much alone. Another man has (more seriously) been barred from seeing his girlfriend and daughter, and has been reduced to sleeping in his car. As he puts it: "I would like to formally thank Microsoft and Nintendo for cracking down on the little guy with a soldering iron in his garage, rather than going after the people that are responsible for the bootlegs being available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Federal Agents Raid Homes for Modchips 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • We've been over this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:02AM (#20083971) Homepage
    The DMCA doesn't prohibit having a backup, just creating, obtaining or distributing the tools to make or to use one. That's the risible position that the DMCA puts us in.

  • Of course Not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kranfer (620510) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:03AM (#20083989) Homepage Journal
    I am going to have to say no... The reason is.... Media degrades over time, and get scratched to hell and such. I own over 500 DVDs, however some of them are "unwatchable" either from storing them in those cheesey folder cases or just letting them sit around on my desk... Some of them are backed up some I bought anew... But I think making personal backups of software SHOULD be legal.... the companies that make this stuff could make money off this by selling an option to make backups for say... a dollar per backup and has to be registered to yourself with a separate backup serial key... DMCA goes too far sometimes....

      • Re:Of course Not (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dwarfking (95773) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:29AM (#20084911) Homepage

        But now you are impacting another part of a manufacturer's business model: planned obsolescence [wikipedia.org].

        If the original CD does not wear out, then the manufacturer can only make money off of you one time on the original sale.

        So obviously fair use copying is just another form of piracy!

  • welp; (Score:5, Funny)

    by sniepre (517796) <sniepre@gmail.com> on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:04AM (#20083991) Homepage
    I guess it's back to stealing games the old fashioned way - under a shirt.

    Seriously. Persecution of the hackers only makes them stronger.

  • Not really a legitimate question... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chmcginn (201645) * on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:04AM (#20083993) Journal
    Since making backups wasn't criminalized by the DMCA.

    If you could make a perfect 1-to-1 copy of a DVD, and have it run, that would still be legal. But since that doesn't work, because commercially available DVD are neutered, you have to crack the encryption - which is what is illegal.

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Slithe (894946) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:04AM (#20083997) Homepage Journal
    The fed doesn't seem to want to raid businesses for hiring illegal aliens, but they spend their time raiding businesses and homes for having mod chips. I thought this line was especially funny. [quote]"Illicit devices like the ones targeted today are created with one purpose in mind, subverting copyright protections," Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for ICE, said in a release. "These crimes cost legitimate businesses billions of dollars annually and facilitate multiple other layers of criminality, such as smuggling, software piracy and money laundering."[/quote] There may be a tenuous connection to smuggling (i.e. bootleg video games disks), but how in the hell do modchips facilitate money laundering. This is just laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic.

    • Money Laundering (Score:5, Funny)

      by camperdave (969942) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:11AM (#20084053) Journal
      how in the hell do modchips facilitate money laundering.

      Perhaps because people with mod chips are so engrossed in playing their pirate games that they don't empty their pockets thoroughly before dumping their clothes in the wash.

      • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Slithe (894946) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:47AM (#20085179) Homepage Journal

        They also get the "jobs" nobody else would want, because it's risky or so crappy paid that even the burger flipping crowd sneers at them.
        The funny thing is that these jobs are low-paid because of the wage lowering effects of mass immigration. (supply and demand, anyone?) This article [vdare.com] has a very interesting paragraph about the meatpacking industry that sums up the situation nicely:

        Thirty years ago, meatpacking was one of the highest-paid industrial jobs in the United States, with one of the lowest turnover rates. In the decades that followed the 1906 publication of The Jungle, labor unions had slowly gained power in the industry, winning their members good benefits, decent working conditions, and a voice in the workplace. Meatpacking jobs were dangerous and unpleasant, but provided enough income for a solid, middle-class life. There were sometimes waiting lists for these jobs. And then, starting in the early 1960s, a company called Iowa Beef Packers (IBP) began to revolutionize the industry, opening plants in rural areas far from union strongholds, recruiting immigrant workers from Mexico, introducing a new division of labor that eliminated the need for skilled butchers, and ruthlessly battling unions. By the late 1970s, meatpacking companies that wanted to compete with IBP had to adopt its business methods--or go out of business. Wages in the meatpacking industry soon fell by as much as 50 percent. Today meatpacking is one of the nation's lowest-paid industrial jobs, with one of the highest turnover rates. The typical plant now hires an entirely new workforce every year or so. There are no waiting lists at these slaughterhouses today. Staff shortages have become an industry-wide problem, making the work even more dangerous.
  • Prohibition in the Roaring Twenties. "Bootleg" discs, Elliot Ness - like tactics. It will never work, it will just alienate an entire nation again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by couchslug (175151)
      "it will just alienate an entire nation again."

      Er, no. The "entire nation" can still buy legal games, and the fair-use folks don't have political pull.
      The only way to influence the game companies is a boycott that addicted consumers will never support.

  • Homeland Security (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KiloByte (825081) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:08AM (#20084031)
    From TFA:

    "Illicit devices like the ones targeted today are created with one purpose in mind, subverting copyright protections," Julie L. Myers, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for ICE, said in a release. "These crimes cost legitimate businesses billions of dollars annually and facilitate multiple other layers of criminality, such as smuggling, software piracy and money laundering."
    From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

    The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), commonly known in the US as Homeland Security, is a Cabinet department of the Federal Government of the United States with the responsibility of protecting the territory of the United States from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters.
    Shouldn't they be sued for wasting taxpayers money for doing things they are not authorized to do? And yeah, even though I'm a Polack I did pay a tribute^Wtax to the US treasury once, so it's my money too.

    But oh wait... comparing them to the Commissariat of Homeland Security (KGB), Bureau of Security (UB) or Securitate, I should be thankful they're not participating in mass murders... yet.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Svartalf (2997)
        Wrong answer: Department of Homeland Security Immigration Services, Customs & Immigration Enforcement.

        It's been brought under the DHS umbrella. From their website: " Created in March 2003, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the largest investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). "

        Nice try, but no cigar for you. :-)

  • Since the original Katamari Damacy isn't available at all in the UK, I had to import it from Japan and use a PS2 modchip to play it. The follow-up game was released in Europe months after appearing in US/Japan, so I also imported that one.

    The fact that I could do this at all shows that there is no technical reason for the region coding in this game - it's purely an illegal tactic to control market prices.

    Rich.

  • "Legitimate" (Score:3, Informative)

    by cfulmer (3166) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:11AM (#20084049) Journal
    Are you talking about copies of software that are unprotected by any copy-protection scheme? If so, that's probably OK. If, however, you're talking about copies of copy-protected games, that's a different story. Their creation, at minimum, is an infringement of the DMCA (17 USC 1201(a)(1)), and your possessing them is evidence that you created them. It's vaguely conceivable that the "backup" copies are fair uses even though you had to break the law to make them, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    The mod chips themselves are a pretty violation under the DMCA:

    No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that . . . is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

  • The Real Question.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Himring (646324) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:11AM (#20084051) Homepage Journal
    This raises an important question: Are legitimate backup copies of a piece of software you own illegal under the DMCA?

    I believe the more important question is: what's happening to our liberties?...

    If we're not losing them in the name of fighting terrorism, then it's in the name of copyright laws. Between Hollywood and the middle east, liberty is bleeding.

  • Let me axe you something (Score:5, Funny)

    by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:11AM (#20084055) Homepage Journal
    This raises an important question

    Don't you mean, begs the question?

  • Games Producers Want The Best Of Both Worlds (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pandrijeczko (588093) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:13AM (#20084071)
    The argument that's used for mod chips is that purchasers of games should be allowed to make backup copies of them. But I don't consider that the real issue here.

    Firstly, in the case of PC games (or indeed any system where games are installed to a hard drive), it should not be obligatory to have the CD or DVD in the drive to play them once installed as this creates totally unnecessary wear on the CD/DVD drive and the disc itself scratches a little more every time it's inserted or removed. Whilst I don't like the "spyware" concept of Valve's Steam, I do accept that being able to load my games on any PC I like without the disk is a good thing - though all praise to Stardock for just letting you get on and play Galactic Civilizations II without the disk once you've registered your product code with them. If every games company trusted me like Stardock does, I'd feel less inclined to rip them off at every opportunity (and, no, I don't work for Stardock).

    Secondly, if your original CD/DVD goes faulty, the games company charges you for a replacement. This strikes me as wrong - if they won't let you back it up, then they should provide replacements (within a reasonable amount of time) for just the cost of postage.

    • Re:Games Producers Want The Best Of Both Worlds (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Renraku (518261) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:28AM (#20084197) Homepage
      When you buy blank media they charge you for the media.

      When you buy any kind of software they charge you mainly for the licence to use the software and to get support/etc. However when you lose the media or it breaks, they want to charge you to replace the media.

      So which is it? Charging us for the media or charging us for the licence? One or the other.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spyrochaete (707033)
      I think Steam is about the best case scenario we could hope to expect. Yes they keep track of what you're playing and for how long, but they use this information to benefit game design as well. Check out the fascinating Half Life 2: Episode One statistics [steampowered.com] for an idea of how Valve makes the most of this technology to observe players' in-game behaviour to assist in designing future products.

      Another thing I love about Steam is the generosity of distribution model. You can download any paid-for product as

  • False Positives? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sasquatch6 (575574) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:02AM (#20084551)
    OK, so the FBI has just gone and raided a whole bunch of places looking for mod-chips. Presumably they would be looking for installed chips in consoles they raid at homes. How are they detecting these mod chips? Are they running a program to detect modified hardware (I would have thought MS, Sony, et al. would be doing that already). If not that, then they must be physically opening the cases to find the chips... Which brings me to my ultimate point: what happens if their information proves to be faulty, and the console is found chipless. Is the owner compensated for bother? Wear and tear? Damage? Loss of warranty after the console has just been opened? One would hope that the apology would extend to some sort of written proof that the console was opened for legal purposes, so that if that 360 red-rings, they can send it back without MS complaining.

  • Spam/Flood (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:07AM (#20084619) Homepage
    Now that the FBI is handling this, everyone that knows their neighbor has a CD burner, mod chip, or unlocked DVD player should call and report them. After all, these things can ONLY be used to facilitate piracy.

    Maybe after a few hundred thousand calls they'd lay off. Shouldn't the FBI be doing more important things anyway? Like say, busting drug rings, killin' gangsters, thwarting terrorists, and making sure that all those school teachers don't have any child molestation charges?

    I don't see how busting people for having mod chips is going to help society beyond MAYBE a few video game purchases. Most of them probably got the mod chips in the first place to back up what they have or to avoid paying $59.99 for a piece of shit game full of bugs..I sure as hell wouldn't buy any more games for that generation if I couldn't make backups like I had done with all of my old ones, and I wouldn't start buying the games knowing that half of them will turn out to suck despite the hype/previews anyway.

    Busting a drug ring can save many lives, buttloads of money, and make society safer. Standing on top of a pile of cash/drugs/criminals and having your picture taken is a lot more glorious than busting some 19 year old in college because he pirated Madden '08.

  • This seems strange... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jskline (301574) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:25AM (#20084855) Homepage
    First off, I sure hope they got legal warrants to do that because if they start doing that to an average citizen in the US, it's a breach of constitutional protections afforded to all Americans.

    I can see this if they are going after "producers"; ie people who are marketing the chips, and such especially if it's intent it to circumvent copyright protections.

    But that is a big issue. Some of these manufacturers want these software mediums protected such that if it becomes non usable then you have to send it in and get it replaced. This too is an ok platform until the manufacturer begins to determine how long they will do that, and at what cost. Then what happens to a product after it's lifespan has ceased? No more replacements or updates???

    "Sir; your product was discontinued last year and we have not yet seen your software disk returned to us. Send your disks back in to us now or face the penalty of the DCMA!"

    Just a thought.

    • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:06AM (#20084013) Homepage
      It's an important question because that's the motivation for mod chips... so that you can run games on CDs that are not published by an official publisher. This description includes games copied from Blockbuster rentals as well as your own games that are copied for traditionally acceptable use such as "I want my kids to play from the backup because the original is expensive!"

      The DMCA has done much to close that hole in the game-seller's net.

      • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dattaway (3088) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:13AM (#20084073) Homepage
        I have a modchip on my Nintendo DS. I don't use it to play games. I have NEVER played a game on it. So why do I have it? So I can run Linux on it. I have no interest playing games, but I do have an interest in a unique hardware device. Should the FBI raid my house?

        If they did raid my and drag me into court, I would ask my legal counsel why small portable computers with good battery life is non-existant, while gaming consoles with much more features are. Something is wrong with the market in my opinion. Should it be illegal for me to have the technical possibility of running a rogue game? Should they give me 20 years in FPMITA Prison for it?

        • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cliffski (65094) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:41AM (#20084335) Homepage
          i don't think your question will get any response other than a dismissal as irrelevant. Dissatisfaction with the market does not act as an excuse to break the law. There is nobody stopping you starting our own computer hardware company, and making the device you describe. The people making the device you modded have done so on the assumption that they can sell complimentary products for it (games). We all know this. They designed, financed and made the product, it's up to them to determine the terms under which they offer it for sale. If you do not like the terms, don't buy one. Punish restrictive practices through the market, not by breaking the law.

          • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Applekid (993327) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:58AM (#20084517)

            There is nobody stopping you starting our own computer hardware company, and making the device you describe.
            There is. Patents.

          • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:01AM (#20084545)
            it's up to them to determine the terms under which they offer it for sale

            Scope to determine terms is not and should not be unlimited. Once something is sold, it's not theirs any more. That is right at the heart of "selling". If they didn't want people to tinker, they shouldn't have offered the device for sale. It's not our responsibility to shoulder the cost of a crummy choice of business model and it's unjust for the law to try and push it onto us.

            Punish restrictive practices through the market, not by breaking the law

            Bullshit. They're writing the laws. Obedience to unjust law is a fool's game. While copyright and patent exist, a free market doesn't.

              • Re:Bogus question. (Score:4, Insightful)

                by skarphace (812333) on Thursday August 02 2007, @02:39PM (#20091459) Homepage

                Except that you are only buying the hardware.

                The firmware/software are licensed to use. You dont actually get ownership.
                But that's exactly the point. They're busting people for modding their devices, not for pirating software.

          • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by dattaway (3088) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:07AM (#20084627) Homepage
            If you do not like the terms, don't buy one. Punish restrictive practices through the market, not by breaking the law.

            Say what? Are you saying "It Is A Violation Of Federal Law To Use This Product Inconsistant With Its Labeling?" Is it also against the law to combine vinegar and baking soda in the kitchen? Is it against the law to use a screwdriver as a hammer? This government is really starting to annoy me if its telling me I can only do what was labeled on the original package.

              • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by domatic (1128127) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:19AM (#20084783)
                If I buy a Gamecube or whatever then it is my gamecube. Contract law IMHO is being severely abused by corporates. All they have to is put a f***** contract on EVERYTHING to see to it that nobody ever has a shred of rights again. Buy a bottle of barbecue sauce? You agreed to a contract. No rights. Period.

                The grandparent isn't pirating games. He's using his own personal private property as he sees fit and under no ethical theory that I can think of does it cost Nintendo anything. If contract law can be twisted to preclude such things then I say it is our sacred duty to violate it at every opportunity.

              • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by kryptkpr (180196) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:29AM (#20084923) Homepage
                You are suggesting that sellers of all products be prevented from setting any conditions on the sale of their products

                Yes. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to actually own the copy that I bought and that includes the ability to modify it. There are already laws in place by society (such as Copyright) which limit what I can do with that copy in terms of distribution. If additional conditions are required (such as NDAs) then these agreements must be established before the time of purchase. Shrink-wrap licenses or EULAs should not be acceptable nor enforceable.

                I guess you would also mean that a EULA should be unenforceable, and thus abolish copyright when it comes to allowing you to make copies of digital products?

                What does EULA have to do with Copyright? Works, digital or otherwise, are just as protected by copyright without EULAs as they are with them.

                If I invent product X, who are you, or the government to dictate the terms under which I profit from my invention?

                It is in the best interest of society that knowledge not be held hostage in the silos of their so-called inventors. This is precisely the original reason for copyright .. to promote progress in the science and arts by offering a TEMPORARY monopoly which then expires and your work enters the public domain.

                If you don't like it, go invent your own product and stick a big "mod chip friendly" sticker on it.

                I'm feeding a Troll aren't I?

              • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)

                by dattaway (3088) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:40AM (#20085071) Homepage
                no. get some perspective. hammers and screwdrivers do not have an end use licence agreement. yes of course it is up to the seller to determine the terms of the sale. its called a contract.

                Perspective? Why should a blank device with NO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL have a license agreement? Should a movie projector have one? A pair of glasses? Why should my Nintendo that I want to put MY OWN DAMNED SOFTWARE on it have a license agreement? I don't want it for the games, I want it for the ARM microprocessors and displays, not for the any included software. The first thing I did was wipe off all that crap software off it, because I didn't agree with it. Is that good? Or did the manufacturer squeeze in some FEDERAL LAW that says my door is going to come down one day because I didn't subscribe to their business model?

                  • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)

                    by dattaway (3088) on Thursday August 02 2007, @10:50AM (#20087043) Homepage
                    but your Nintendo DOES have copyrighted software on it, even without a disk in the drive.

                    No sir! I now have an open source custom bootloader flashed on it. The first instructions the ARM processors run the uploaded program I installed. Lots of good people in the DSLinux community understood the basic hardware and enjoyed making a complete system from scratch. The ARM7 and ARM9 processors are well documented and so is the hardware on the DS. I don't see why it would be a FEDERAL offense for someone to write their own software. Maybe a judge somewhere will listen one day without taking money.

              • Re:Bogus question. (Score:4, Insightful)

                by mhall119 (1035984) on Thursday August 02 2007, @09:01AM (#20085381) Homepage Journal

                If you rent a house, you sign a form to say you will not do X, Y and Z, maybe not to have any pets, or leave the house unattended.
                I believe the parent was claiming that if you *buy* the house, then *you* should have the right to decide if you have pets, not the seller. Once you sell somebody a house, you no longer have the rights to dictate what they can and cannot do with the house, because you sold the rights to them. Why shouldn't the same common sense apply to electronics?

                  • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by mhall119 (1035984) on Thursday August 02 2007, @09:57AM (#20086175) Homepage Journal

                    You seem to be forgetting these things called `contracts'. You most certainly can sell a house that includes certain conditions that are part of the sales contract. I could sell you a house with the conditions that you not have any pets or leave the house unattended, and once you signed the contract, you'd be bound to those restrictions. If you didn't like it, you would walk away, or negotiate with me about the clause.
                    Good counter-argument, except that the only "contract" agreement you make when buying a Nintendo is between you and the entity you are buying from, and the only conditions of that contract are that you pay a given price, and they give you a product that works as advertised. After that, you get into the legally murky area of the "EULA". Imagine that you bought a house, and there are no pet restrictions in your contract. Then you walk into the house for the first time after buying it, and there is a piece of paper in the living room that says by entering and occupying the house, you implicity agree to a whole new list of restrictions, like not having pets, that were not a part of the contract you signed to obtain the house. Essentially the seller is trying to impose restrictions on the use of something he no longer owns, rather than placing those restrictions before the sale, while he still had the right to do so.

                    And this sort of thing happens all the time with house sales. One big example? HOAs, and you tend to agree to their rules when you buy the house. If you don't, you can't buy the house. (HOAs are evil, yes, but they are real too.)
                    Actually an HOA can only dictate what you do with your house within the confines of the neighborhood. You can legally take your house somewhere else and be free of the HOA regulations, so they don't so much control what you do with your house (individually owned), they just control what you do in their neighborhood (collectively owned). Nintendo could, for example, disallow modded consoles on their network service (Microsoft I believe already does), because they own the network service. But they no longer own the console after they sell it to you, and can't add further restrictions to something they don't own.

          • Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by misanthrope101 (253915) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:44AM (#20085145)

            it's up to them to determine the terms under which they offer it for sale
            Those terms would be what we call "money." When it has changed hands and the console is mine, then it is mine. I don't get to set terms for what you do with my car, or my house, or my pencil, after you buy it. There is no binding contract you enter into by buying a console that mandates you to buy games down the line.

            If GE sold a coffee maker that magically permitted only GE-brand coffee filters, no one would give you a moral lecture for using a workaround and using non-GE filters. It's your coffee maker. If GM sold cars that accepted only GM-designed bolts, no one would lecture you for using an adapter or changing out the bolt thingy so you could use whatever bolts you wanted.

            It would never occur to anyone to be so damned stupid as to think that GE or GM or any other company has a moral claim to dictate how you use the product you already paid for--unless it's a video game console, or otherwise involves a computer or, God forbid, the internet. These are apparently magical, and are not subject to the same common-sense, well-known principles by which we have conducted business since, well, forever.

          • Re:Bogus question. (Score:4, Informative)

            by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday August 02 2007, @08:44AM (#20085153) Homepage
            You do not have to sign a contract to buy a Nintendo DS.

      • Re:Bogus question. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by beatmania (1136353) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:53AM (#20084455)
        The "motivation" for mod chips kind of depends on the person, wouldn't you say?

        I bought a Nintendo Wii on launch day when I was living in Japan, and bought 4 or 5 games for it while I was living there. I just returned to the USA about a week ago, and now I want to buy more games, but I can't, thanks to region locking. The only options I have are 1.) Buy another Wii (not really an option, as I've sunk money into the Virtual Console games), or 2.) Install a modchip. The games I want to play on my Wii are indeed published by an official publisher, just from a different region.

        Does this mean I should be raided / arrested / tried in court?

        I realize that a lot of people who use modchips are only out to copy everything in sight, but hasn't this kind of thing been covered in the past (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.)?

        Bogus question indeed, sirs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrjb (547783)
      The (somewhat rhetorical) question is, did they raid those homes to find *one* mod chip or whole bunches of them? You don't need to have hundreds of mod chips to play back your own backups, after all. Unless, of course, said mod chip owners want to claim those mod chips were all backups of their *original* mod chip...

    • What about imports? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:38AM (#20084303) Journal
      What about imports? Now I'm told that at least the PS3 is no longer region-locked, but the PS2 was and so were a heck of a lot of PS1 units. (Although more loosely into PAL and NTSC regions.)

      I'm in Europe which is mostly PAL, and which also didn't get half of the PS1 games available in the USA in NTSC.

      So here's the deal: half the game I owned were US imports. None burned/"backed-up", all original CDs, with manual and box and everything. Sony got my money for every single one of them. Money which they otherwise wouldn't have gotten at all, since they never released those games down here. Yeah, that's the kind of an evil pirate I am: I went and gave Sony some money against their will.

      Sony also always acted as if imports are piracy. Again, we're not talking about burned CDs, we're talking units sold. Apparently the fact that I bought some games from them, which they otherwise wouldn't have sold me, counted as piracy to them. Apparently it's soooo much of a similarity between an inconvenience like "yeah, but it screws up our marketting data of how much units were sold in each territory" (which is all that game imports ever did) and pirating that game.

      Where I'm getting at is: it's not as simple as "modchips == piracy." There are perfectly non-piracy uses of modchips. One is mentioned in the summary (you'll ideally want your little kid to play with a copy, not to scratch the $60 disc) and another one I just gave you now.

      Plus, there's the whole moral issue of criminalizing people for owning a tool, as opposed to actually committing the infraction. If you still don't see the problem, think this: if you're a guy, chances are you have all the equipment you'd ever need to be a rapist. It doesn't mean you're automatically one. How about looking for people who actually committed a crime, instead of those who would technically have the means.

      And it seems to me that that's the whole problem here: the summary mentions raiding for mod-chips, not for burned DVDs.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Broken scope (973885)
        There is no moral quandary, if you have the means, you obviously will commit a crime.

        Where is the rock you have been living under, are there any good ones near by that I can move too? Cause something tells me its a hell of a lot more pleasant under there.

    • Talk about no clue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the grace of R'hllor (530051) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:20AM (#20084135)
      What use is your right to a backup copy if you cannot use the copy, ever? You have to break one law to make use of your rights guaranteed in another law, and that is ridiculous.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ICLKennyG (899257)
      Troll much?

      The DMCA goes hand in hand with Fair Use [wikipedia.org] principles which have time and again been upheld by the US Supreme Court. It criminalizes tools necessary to implement freedoms upheld by previous USSC decisions. The law goes so far as to not only make telling anyone that a Sharpie can beat Sony's copy protection, but make the magic marker its self illegal. It makes the ability to gain a backup copy illegal, and thus in the great 4th grade tradition: 'You have no clue!'
    • But that's the point. The media industry HATES fair use, always has. They tried to make it illegal in the late 70's and got their asses handed to them in the courts. So they found a way to eliminate fair use by making an end run around it. They found a way to make it illegal to create the backup that you can legally own.

    • Re:No Clue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:34AM (#20084257) Homepage
      AFAIK, "Fair Use" isn't a right, but a "legally defensible position" in that the court will accept "fair use"-class usage as a sufficient excuse. As such, you actually do not have a right to have a backup copy. Furthermore, fair use requires such a backup to be made by and for the owner of the original media. Since DMCA blocks you any way to do so yourself, this basically implies any and all backups of copy-protected media is illegally obtained either because you didn't make it yourself (not "fair use") or used illegal means to make it (DMCA). The heart of the problem is that "fair use" usage isn't a legal right, otherwise publishers would've been obligated to provide means for the people to excersize that right.

    • Re:No Clue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tinkerghost (944862) on Thursday August 02 2007, @07:41AM (#20084341) Homepage

      You are correct. You may own as many backups as you would like as part of 'Fair Use' which the DMCA explicitly states it is not meant to interfier with, and the MPAA & RIAA lawyers argued in front of congress as being acceptable fair use. However, the DMCA does make creating, selling, distributing, and importing the tools to make backups illegal. Additionally, mod chips, which would allow you to use your legal backup - made with illegal tools - are also illegal. So, you are perfectly within your rights to own a backup, so long as you don't posses the tools to make it or the tools to actually use it.

      So, while the DMCA explicitly states that your fair use rights are not to be hindered by the DMCA, it simultaniously blocks your ability to impliment those rights by outlawing the tools required to do so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Silver Sloth (770927)

      News For Nerds
      And, judging by the number of responses, these subjects are exactly what we Nerds are interested in hearing about.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.