Federal Agents Raid Homes for Modchips

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?"

Not really a legitimate question...

[Chmcginn]

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?

[Slithe]

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.

This sounds very much like....

[Nefarious Wheel]

Prohibition in the Roaring Twenties. "Bootleg" discs, Elliot Ness - like tactics. It will never work, it will just alienate an entire nation again.

Re:Bogus question.

[erroneus]

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.

[Bibz]

Well let's say you bought a game and make a copy of it for backup. One day you lose the original so you want to use your legitimate backup, for that you need a mod-chip.
Your backup is "legal" since you bought the game and made a copy only for yourself, but you need something "illegal" (ie. the mod-chip) to play it.

Could the use of a Mod-chip only for legitimate backup be legal ? If so how do you tell if it's a legitimate backup ?

Homeland Security

[KiloByte]

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.

Katamari Damacy - legitimate use

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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.

The Real Question....

[Himring]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Talk about no clue

[the grace of R'hllor]

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:Again?

[Silver Sloth]

News For Nerds

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:No Clue

[mwvdlee]

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.

What about imports?

[Moraelin]

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:Bogus question.

[cliffski]

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:No Clue

[tinkerghost]

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:Bogus question.

[Applekid]

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

There is. Patents.

Re:Bogus question.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Content provider guarentee

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these companies that want to prevent backups should be required BY LAW to provide multiple backup copies of any content to the consumer with no questions asked and free of charge. Then there would be no need for the consumer to make backups. If I buy a DVD and I want a backup an hour later; dial a 1-800 number and the company should have one in the mail right away.

It is put up or shut up time for the content industry.

Spam/Flood

[Renraku]

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.

Re:Bogus question.

[dattaway]

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.

[domatic]

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.

This seems strange...

[jskline]

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:Of course Not

[dwarfking]

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!

Re:Bogus question.

[kryptkpr]

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.

[misanthrope101]

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.

Homes & Business...?

[SailorSpork]

I think the lack of information here is letting our imaginations run wild. I seriously doubt that we're talking RIAA-Nazi style "let's pick a few kazaa users at random and drag them to court" raid, my impression is that they're arresting internet & ebay resellers and professional installers of modchips, and the people that sell the modded XBox hard drives with hundreds of games downloaded to them. We're likely talking people that deal in several thousands of chips per year, not a peon kid who thought buying a random modchip to import / download / Linux-ize his system would be cool (so relax).

And the question posed of owning a legitimate backup is a classic catch-22... if you own a legit backup, its legit. But if you made it and have to use it by breaking copy protections, that is a violation of the DMCA. How you can make a legit backup without cracking copy protection is the catch-22...

Re:Bogus question.

[mhall119]

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.

[dougmc]

Why should a blank device with NO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL have a license agreement?
...
Why should my Nintendo that I want to put MY OWN DAMNED SOFTWARE on it have a license agreement?

I agree with your sentiment, but your Nintendo DOES have copyrighted software on it, even without a disk in the drive.

In any event, I'm not sure that actually having mod chips is a criminal act, though the DMCA may have made it so under many conditions. And if you're merely violating a EULA, that's generally a civil matter anyways -- not something that the police usually bust your door down for, though the RIAA seems to have gotten them to do that a few times lately. But selling mod chips as a way to run pirated games, that would be illegal.

I'm pretty sure the raids were done on those selling mod chips, not end users. But maybe you're next, you criminal Linux users you!

it isn't complicated, folks...

[dAzED1]

This raises an important question: Are legitimate backup copies of a piece of software you own illegal under the DMCA?

False question. You don't own the software. You have purchased a license to use, nothing more.

I'm much against IP and such, but it is not helpful, at all, to rely upon this very weak, false, argument. You do not own the software!

If you can't figure out the distinction, let me give you an analogy. Pretend you are a stripper. Someone pays you $40 to give them a lap dance. Do they own you while you are giving them the lap dance? Or are they simply borrowing your time?

Now, replace "borrowing your time" with "license to use in a particular manner" and you have your answer. If you owned the software, you could change the license. Who owns World of Warcraft? Not you...Blizzard does. You merely have a license to use, in a particular way. I can't fathom why that is such a difficult concept for so many people.

Legitimate uses

[Hydian]

There are legitimate uses for mod chips beyond making legal backups. The console makers want us all to beleve that these uses are also illegal, but they aren't.

1) Playing import games. Playing imports has been popular for quite a while. The console makers hate it because it ruins their ability to control prices (even though the import scene has no effect on pricing) but it is perfectly legal.

2) Homebrew games. Many platforms have a decent homebrew game scene (going back to the begining of consoles.) It requires a mod chip to play these games on newer platforms.

3) General experimentation. People like throwing Linux on anything with a CPU. Consoles have some unique features that could be exploited for certain non-gaming applications.

Re:Bogus question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of licensing?

Re:Bogus question.

[mhall119]

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.

[mhall119]

As a mentioned in another reply, you don't sign away your rights to build a fence, you sign away your rights to build a fence in the HOA's neighborhood. Furthermore, either you agree to give the HOA the right to decided on that when you purchased the house, or some previous owner did and no longer has the ability to give you that right. Either way, the purchase agreement should have declared that the right to put up a fence was not conveyed to you as part of the purchase. If there was no HOA when you purchased your house, then one cannot come along after the fact and tell you that you cannot build a fence, because you already had that right and did not consent to giving it away.

Re:Bogus question.

[compro01]

said modchip is illegal under the DMCA, regardless of intent.

which is yet another reason why the DMCA needs to be ripped into little pieces, then ripped into littler pieces, and then burned and the ashes cast into the wind.

Are you banned

[Anonymous Coward]

from copying the dance
telling people about the dance
teaching people how to do the dance

because this is what copyright does that is different from your "lapdance" analogy.

Re:it isn't complicated, folks...

[JimFive]

If I have a license to use the software then doesn't that license extends to whatever media that software happens to be on?

Does that license go away if my disk gets broken?

If I purchased a license isn't the company responsible for making sure that I can excercise that license by providing replacement media?

Is it ok for my friend comes over and uses the software, he didn't buy a license. And the EULA most likely says that the license is non-transferable, so can I let my friend use my license? If I can let him use my license on my computer, why can't I let him use my license on his computer?

All of the digital copyright issues have this problem. Either I own the media (and by extension the bits pressed into it) and can make copies, reverse engineer it, or sell it on ebay; or I own a license, which means (or should mean) that they are required to provide me with the ability to use what I have paid to use.

The problem is that the companies are trying to have it in their favor both ways. It's a license, so you can't copy, sell, trade it; but it's a product so if it breaks its your own fault.

JimFive

Re:Bogus question.

[Xanius]

Why do you keep talking as though by adding a mod chip to a ds or wii or anything else the company is losing money on the console?

The game company has the potential to lose but Nintendo has nothing to lose by allowing mods. I still have to buy the console before I put the chip in to it. They shouldn't care what I do with it after I buy it from them, sure they can come up with a way to make it so I can't use a burned disc online to try to make sure I'm not pirating a game. It would end up like PC games, I can pirate the hell out of it and play by myself or on a lan but if I try to go online it says sorry no can do until I put in the real thing. Problem solved for 90% of the people.

Re:Of course Not

[Metaphorically]

Bullets are legal.

Re:Bogus question.

[skarphace]

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.

[kryptkpr]

Your post is dripping with contempt for the people who actually make stuff. 'so-called inventors' is a great example.

I'm a Computer Engineer. I design (proprietary) hardware. In my spare time, I'm a Software Engineer. I design (open-source) software. I am perfectly well aware of how difficult the design process is from both sides of the equation, and have no contempt what so ever for the hard-working individuals who work night and day so us geeks can have new toys to play with.

Who did invent the mentioned nintendo games console then? you? your mates?

The aforementioned hard-working individuals did. And you know what? They often hold neither the patents nor copyrights to their work (since their development time has been bought) so I fail to see how the actual developers factor into this discussion. The contempt that drips from me is specifically towards "so-called" inventors. Individuals or groups of individuals that claim incredibly obvious or non-original ideas as their own, and end up owning them due to slip-ups in the way the current intellectual property system is structured.

However, you're steering this discussion away from where we started from. I do not believe that anyone (not the inventor, developer, financer, or any other group) has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with their product (except re-distribution in the case of easily reduplicated products, but copyright covers this).

If they want to impose restrictions above and beyond those which are already offered by copyright and trademarks (NDAs are very common with commercial hardware development packages), these restrictions must be agreed to and signed by both parties before the time of sale.

If modifying hardware breaks someone's business model, they can 1) adapt with a better business model, such as charging more up-front, or 2) cease to manufacture the good.

For a great example of a very poor business model that's been destroyed by hardware modifications, check out Pure Digital / CVS Disposable Camcorders [maushammer.com]. You are supposed to buy them (cheap), use them, and return them (for resale). I bought 5 of them and modified them to have USB ports (=added/enabled extra functionality, exactly like the modchips we are discussing here) and have no intention of returning them.

Is it your view that I've done something wrong here? I paid them what they asked for the camera, but once I walked out of the store with it.. it's mine.

Justifiable Reason

[stmfreak]

I added them up. Over $1,000 USD spent on XBOX games since we bought our console in 2001. And that was just the discs that I could find. I have discs without boxes, boxes without discs and I know that I purchased some discs that I can no longer find boxes or disc for at all.

But the rough value of what I was able to find and secure through the years is easily $1,000. I added them up. I think I cried a little. Because they were all, ALL of them, irrevocably scratched.

I have children. Children don't do well with shiny plastic. We had trouble keeping the SNES games working, but at least I could order screwdriver bits from Hong Kong, open the cases and brush the food out with vinegar, a toothbrush and some compressed air. The Nintendo 64 was equally difficult to keep operational. When the industry unanimously went to DVDs with the Gamecube, the XBOX and the PS1, I knew we were doomed. But we settled on the XBOX because of Halo.

Five years later, two XBOXes, four power supplies, twenty controllers, four DVD enablers/remotes, four years of XBM with sample DVDs (most missing), and over $1,000 in games, I did it.

I broke the law.

After installing mod chips, I managed to copy some, not all, but some of our dying games up to a Samba share on our network. I spent another $40 on a DMCA device known as a grinder along with some cotton polishing wheels and plastic polish and managed to restore a few more DVD discs to readability. I also destroyed one permanently learning how to do this slowly and carefully enough. We now have about 23 titles "saved" and usable, and at least another 30 waiting for me to attempt to restore them.

Could we go to blockbuster, rent a game, save it and play it forever? Sure, but we don't. Just like I don't run around committing murder with my kitchen knives on a daily basis. We need to teach the industry that capability != intent. You'd think they would figure this out. When our XBOX wasn't working and I was staring at all our destroyed video games, we STOPPED BUYING GAMES.

Now that I have a modded xbox that can make a permanent recording of the games I legally acquire and pay for, I don't mind buying games.

This sort of rationale is why we still play Halo 2 on our modded xboxes. This is why we no longer have an xbox-live subscription (we'd be banned). This is why we have not purchased an XBOX 360. I am very concerned that the next gen consoles will drain my money away through easily scratched polycarbonate game media. It's almost as if they designed them to disintegrate upon contact with children.

I hope someone in the industry is listening. I need a console that allows me to install software, then put the media in a safe place. Without this feature, my kids cannot play for long (some games only lasted one day) and we don't purchase as many games as we otherwise might.

Re:Bogus question.

[HermMunster]

The reason you disagree is that you don't believe in private ownership and he does. Once it is his it is his forever. Just like a shovel is his and is his forever. The only way to loose it is to have it stolen, given away, or taken away through due process, or it is destroyed. If he agreed to some EULA and then he gives the shovel away (or sells it) he's not obligated to ensure the transfer of the terms of that EULA nor would he. This is precisely what he's getting at.

I did not read contempt in any post except yours. He was simply responding.

The difference between your argument and his is that he's right and you are wrong.

Re:Bogus question.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The problem is that you dont own the 'property' contained in the code, They do.

Yes, I do own THAT specific copy of the code. What I don't have is the copyright on that code. However as far as I know, mod chips don't contain copies of the machine's firmware. On to the real point:

Now that said, if you read my other post, i actually agree with your view of ownership personally. I also feel its mine to do as i please. The problem is the LAW doesnt.

First, what law specifies that sellers may create arbitrary, legally binding terms of use on copies of data they sell after they've sold it?

Second, the law that IS being violated here is the DMCA and it is being violated because the mod chips are a "circumvention device" and these people who are distributing them are trafficking in circumvention devices. It has nothing to do with users of said chips violating some license agreement.

And at any rate, third, I never said anything about any law. I wasn't trying to argue a matter of law, I was trying to argue a matter of general ethics. The law will never be changed and will only get worse if people believe they have no rights whatsoever over intellectual property they purchase except those arbitrarily proscribed by the seller. And the mere concept of the seller being able to dictate said rights AFTER the purchase is simply ludicrous.