Federal Agents Raid Homes for Modchips 537
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?"
$3 billion a year? (Score:0, Interesting)
So really, Microsoft is doing pretty good about creating a system that is always online. If a few years from now your console HAS to be online, the copied games industry will shrink even more. Sure, people will be able to change the packets, blah blah blah, but where we stand today compared to 4 years ago the software companies are far better off.
Of course Not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bogus question. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Games Producers Want The Best Of Both Worlds (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Bogus question. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
False Positives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bogus question. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are reasons to use a modchip beyond playing pirated games. There is always the possibility of playing third party games (where do you think new companies come from?), using the hardware for something other than a gaming console (myth tv/cheap handheld/etc), or just tinkering with it. The label on the back of the system says the warranty will be voided by playing with the insides, as it should be, but that is not the same thing as saying "opening this box is reason for your arrest".
Apparently our government (this is sadly not limited to the US) has not yet realized that a majority of the tech companies in existence today got their start tinkering with previous products.
Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:2, Interesting)
Slashdot is not the place to argue if a sticker on a box counts as a contract, though. If a company wants to license a product so that it is only used in certain ways, then the contract should be negotiated, up front, before the purchase. After I have purchased the device, I may decide to cut through the cardboard box, rip through the paper that was going to be a license, and then compost the paper without even looking at it.
Who is Dell to say I can not install Linux on a computer I buy from them, they sold it to me right?
Who is Ford to say I can't put after market air filter on my car, I bought the car.
And, to make a direct parallel to your argument, why can't an auto maker force me to only use their car for street driving instead of racing? They would have changed twice the price if they knew I wanted to drive on a track/off road/anywhere else. It's their product, who am I to simply use it as I see fit after I've already paid them for it.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not really a legitimate question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bogus question. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not really a legitimate question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bogus question. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your post is dripping with contempt for the people who actually make stuff. 'so-called inventors' is a great example. Who did invent the mentioned nintendo games console then? you? your mates? How much of the R&D budget for the device did you contribute?
Said 1000 times before: (Score:2, Interesting)
Later that year I discovered a mod chip that would simply plug onto the motherboard and one screw to secure it to the board. All of the sudden I could drop in a 60 gig drive, later a 120 gig drive. Amazingly now I could store my entire CD collection on my Xbox, 60 CD's in all. I believe about 12 gigs worth of MP3. Add in Xbox Media Center (player back then) and I could pretty much play all my MP3's to my home theater system complete with playlists and visualizations.
Now because of the much bigger drive I copied some of my (Legally purchased) games directly to the hard drive. AMAZING load times were much faster. No more waiting forever to play Mercenaries. My Xbox became the center of my living room with it's feature rich entertainment possabilities. So far the uses mentioned are legal, well aside from this DMCA making it illegal to circumvent copyright.
My POV is simple. MS designed and gave us a game console with quite a bit of power and expandability. The mod community made this better and locked me into using the Xbox. I BUY games for it still to this day (The exception being if there is a PC port). I use my Xbox to play tunes when I dont feel like waiting 15 minutes for my winXP system to boot up and load all that garbage and do checks and stuff before the OS becomes usable.
Microsoft didnt fully "realize" the Xbox potential and underground groups brought that to light making something good better. Is there really anything wrong with that? I love mod chips and really believe they should stay. Modding Cars, Game consoles, houses pretty much everything is what people want, make it so.
(for comparison, look into the Car modding scene, it's HUGE. Now look at the Console mod... small due to litigation.)
Re:Not really a legitimate question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't think the DVD Jon stuff was so retarded just because it was a chance to show the MPAA/DVDCCA and the judicial officials of the world that CSS is not an effective encryption system.
The one that's retarded is the Kaleidescape debacle. [cepro.com] To sum it up, a company called Kaleidescape puts together a fantastic DVD ripper/server system. It is easy and simple to use, it's locked down so movies that are ripped can't be accessed by any non-Kaleidescape device, it stores bit-for-bit CSS-encrypted copies of the DVDs on the server, and only decrypts them in the player (a separate box connected by a network connection), just like any other DVD player does. And best of all, Kaleidescape was granted a license by the DVDCCA to use CSS in the player. Oh yeah, and Kaleidescape also gives you the option to bundle large movie collections preloaded on a system, thereby providing revenue for the MPAA. Pretty soon the DVDCCA realizes what the product is, and since the DVDCCA is partially made up of consumer electronics manufacturers who never thought to create such a great device, they tried to lay the smackdown on Kaleidescape, saying they violated the terms of the license... Even though the Kaleidescape system offers less for would-be "pirates" than any PC with a $30 DVD drive... Oh, and the whole system, in the beginning, had a base price of $27,000. These days a basic system can go for about $10,000, but that's still out of reach of the kid in his mom's basement copying his friends movies. All the while, the only "legitimate" competitors to Kaleidescape make DVD servers which are not locked down, and which require the end-user to install DVD Decryptor or libdvdcss themselves (but the software is already set up to automatically integrate with DVD Decryptor). So the DVDCCA goes after the legally-licensed company and legitimizes the ones using the actual "pirate" software. And now that Kaleidescape won the lawsuit, the DVDCCA is amending their license agreement to require DVD players to actually be physically holding the original DVD.
Now that is retarded. Take an innovative, easy-to-use product, which if it won mass acceptance and became a common everyday system, would revolutionize the home movie experience, and try to cripple it, thereby keeping home movie viewing in the stone age.
Re:Bogus question. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You are defending outright fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
If game console manufacturers business model depends on limiting your freedom to use the device you purchase, shouldn't this be stated more clearly? Especially when it goes against all expectations about what the sale of an electronic device means? But that would hurt their profits.
So really, this 'business model' that you are defending is based on misleading the consumer. You are defending outright fraud.