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?"

We've been over this

[Rogerborg]

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

[Kranfer]

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:

[mwvdlee]

My Audio CD collection contains a fair number of CD-R discs in original sleeves, because the original discs got damaged too much (usually still plays, but with "dents" and hic-ups). So I just burned my own MP3 rips to a quality CD-R and use the backup disc. Proof enough for me that backups are both required and a good solution to the problem of damage to the physical carrier of the purchased media.

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:

[mwvdlee]

On the way between the player and the case (i.e. accidental drops), they can get damaged. If other people (i.e. family) have access to the CD's, they can get damaged. Even inside the player they can get damaged, by the players themselves. I also have had CD players in my cars for well over 10 years and used to carry around a portable CD player back when MP3 players didn't exist; these are definitely susceptible to shock. And then CD's just degrade over time, even if you never expose them to humidity, dust,

Re:

[HitekHobo]

I wonder why a rider wasn't put into the DMCA forcing all content providers to provide free replacement copies upon request? Oh right... the content providers wrote the bill.

Re:

[Dog-Cow]

And like a bullet, its only purpose is to harm.

Re:

[Metaphorically]

Bullets are legal.

welp;

[sniepre]

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...

[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.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Making backups was not outlawed per se. But its spirit, and the way it is implemented, pretty much outlaws it. It's like telling you you may go wherever you want, but must not step on red paint, then everything but your home is painted red. You're still free to go wherever you can go, you just can't go anywhere anymore.

Re:

[DreadPiratePizz]

1 to 1 copies don't work? That's odd, because I've made a disk image of a DVD in OS X and burned it (using a dual layer burner), and had it play absolutely fine in a DVD player. Not once did I crack the CSS.

Re:Not really a legitimate question...

[CelticWhisper]

What kind of blank media did you use? Normally recordable DVDs have inaccessible CSS key sectors so that the CSS key cannot be duplicated along with the rest of the content. Also, what DVD was it that you copied? Maybe it was released unencrypted (though I can't really see that happening.)

Re:

[norminator]

Actually, no you can't burn a copy of a commercial, CSS-encrypted disc to a new disc. The section that would hold the CSS key on DVD-R's is not writeable, so you can copy the entire encrypted DVD image, but not the encryption key. That leaves you with a coaster. But you can mount the image on your hard drive and watch it.

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 s

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.

Money Laundering

[camperdave]

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:

[Opportunist]

Simple. Trade 101 teaches you that.

Illegal aliens work in the country for cheap. For dirt cheap. They don't care about minimum wage or labour laws. And if, where should they go? Court? 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. And if a company doesn't have to give you gloves or goggles when you're cleaning that fluorine tank, they safe a lot. Should that immigrant get sick because of it, well, dump him, next is a

Re:WTF?

[Slithe]

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.

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:

[couchslug]

"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

[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.

Re:

[Svartalf]

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. :-)

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.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Yes, the customer is the one that suffers from this practice. And of course, no distributor is happy about it when the customer defends himself against that practice and cracks open this cartel.

Because what this allows is cross financing. If you already have a stranglehold on a market where you can gouge whatever you want because your competitors don't dare to hunt on your turf, you can take the revenue from there to make the products dirt cheap in another market where you're battling for sales. And of cour

"Legitimate"

[cfulmer]

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;

Re:

[toetagger1]

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;

So why are photo copiers still legal? And CD-burners? Why is a mod-chip different from those other two?

Re:

[redelm]

So perhaps modchip designers/producers should advertise their product prominently with the warning "In compliance with US DMCA, this product has been designed and produced to enable legally authorized "fair use" rights of creating and operating from backup media. No other purpose is intended. Any other use is a violation of Federal Law."

The sincerity of this intent could be demonstrated if the modchips were _not_ interoperable and/or refused to make copies of copies (AFAIK, not fair use).

Manufacturers

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.

Re:The Real Question....

[Dunbal]

Between Hollywood and the middle east, liberty is bleeding.

      Don't worry. As a physician I am qualified to tell you that all bleeding stops eventually. One way or another.

Let me axe you something

[0xdeadbeef]

This raises an important question

Don't you mean, begs the question?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Games Producers Want The Best Of Both Worlds

[Renraku]

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:

[blahplusplus]

"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."

The real issue is that consumers need a bill of rights, if they had a self-funded corporate like entity to protect their interests lots of these attempts at private tyranny would be mitigated.

The first thing is, a government body has to start treating consumers as co-owners and investors of the products they buy (i.e. invest in), this way corpora

Re:

[spyrochaete]

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

Re:

[elrous0]

The main advantage that *I* see for mod chips (and I've installed them on some of my consoles in the past) isn't playing "backup" copies at all (I've never played a "backup" or pirated commercial game in my life). It's being able to install alternate operating systems (like XBMC) and emulators for playing old games like (MAME).

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Dunbal]

Those same taxes you wish to increase would simply be pushed onto the consumer, leading to higher game costs.

You clearly do not understand the economics of piracy.

Higher game costs would lead to greater piracy and diminished game sales, because they would still be easily duplicated, the desire to play them would still be there, however fewer people would justify spending a larger portion of their disposable income to purchase them legally. Especially at a time whe

False Positives?

[Sasquatch6]

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.

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.

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.

"Backups", really?

[seebs]

Every time I see a debate about backups, I end up seeing one of the pro-backup people saying that the reason he needs to be able to play backups is that he can't afford full price for games, so he trades them with friends, or something like that.

I think actual backups ought to be legal, but it seems to me that the well's been poisoned.

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.

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.

[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.

[dattaway]

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.

[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: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.

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:

[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, leg

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.

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:

[cliffski]

No I am not a troll. I have a different view to you, and to the guy who called me a 'moron' and accused me of having brain damage. It's what intelligent, reasonable people in the real world call a 'difference of opinion'. Such things can be discussed and debated rationally and sensibly, except on slashdot, where anyone who disagrees with the /. groupthink is hurled with abuse.

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

Re:

[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 mention

Re:

[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 pos

Re:

[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 ca

Re:Bogus question.

[dattaway]

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:

[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 mat

Re:Bogus question.

[dattaway]

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:

[muridae]

hammers and screwdrivers do not have an end use licence agreement.

Neither does the Wii, the DS, nor any other console that I've bought. When I turned on my DS, I never had to click through a questionable document that pretended to be a contract between me and Nintendo.

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. Aft

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.

[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:

[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 pur

Re:

[erroneus]

Actually, that raises another good issue in this case.

With the law clearly infringing upon an owner's right to perform non-infringing activities with his own property illustrates that the law itself is a bad law.

It's a rarely identified fact that when a case is being heard in court, it's not just the defendant that is on trial, it is also the law itself that is on trial. A verdict of "not guilty because the law is bad" often sets interesting precedents and serves to help correct bad law. It's a part of th

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.

Re:Bogus question.

[MobyDisk]

You do not have to sign a contract to buy a Nintendo DS.

Re:

[mhall119]

They designed, financed and made the product, it's up to them to determine the terms under which they offer it for sale.

That's the thing though, they can dictate the terms of the sale, but should the be able to dictate the terms of use? No non-media product I can think of dictates how you can use what you buy. Toyota doesn't care if I mod my car, or who's gasoline I put in it, why should Nintento care what you put in your DS?

Re:

[Balthisar]

Same here -- I've got three modded Xboxes for the express purpose of streaming MythTV throughout my house. XBMC and XBMCMythTV are the only things that run on them, and wouldn't be able to run if not for the mods.

Re:

[gsslay]

Should the FBI raid my house?

Well nothing in TFA suggests you are in any danger of this happening. Unless you are involved in the sale or distribution of the devices. But feel free to get worried about it.

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.

You think the court and your legal counsel would care about your opinion of the gaming console market?

Re:

[Svartalf]

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?

No, but the DHS will be visiting you shortly...

Re:

[another_fanboy]

complain that its a police state because you cannot play pirated xbox games

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 t

You are defending outright fraud

[spun]

How do you rebut the point that the terms of the contract are not disclosed when buying a console? Should one party have the right to enforce a contract that the other party has not agreed to, and doesn't even know about? That seems very authoritarian of you. It's almost as if you believe that anyone with money and power should be able to dictate terms unilaterally to those of us without. That's not really what you believe, is it?

If game console manufacturers business model depends on limiting your freedom

Re:Bogus question.

[beatmania]

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:

[gravis777]

Copyright law is much older than the DMCA. My guess is what they are claiming in these DMCA claims are that they are using modchips to break copy-protection built into the systems. Whether you are using backups of software you legally own, are playing pirated software, or running home-brewed apps, if you are using a modchip which can circumvent copy protection of the system, said modchip is illegal under the DMCA, regardless of intent.

Re:

[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.

Re:

[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 ?

Re:

[montyzooooma]

But if you no longer possess the original are you legally allowed to own the backup? If another person found your mislaid original in the street and took it home with him then doesn't he actually have a better legal standing because he possesses the original even if he didn't originally buy it. You, OTOH, with no original would have a harder time defending your right to own the backup.

Anyway, isn't it the means to circumvent the DMCA they're going after and not the backups.

Re:

[bazorg]

But if you no longer possess the original are you legally allowed to own the backup?

If you have a receipt or any other way to prove the purchase of the original I think you should be OK. If you show up in court with a DVD-R with a game and the original DVD with tooth-marks it should be clear to any judge what your intention is when making back up copies of the media. As for the DMCA attempting to block this, it's the lawmakers of the USA that should be held responsible.

Re:

[OAB_X]

No, a mod chip is "illegal" because you are "circumventing copy protection" which under the DMCA is illegal.

The copy protection is: no non-original games.

And seeing as how you don't own the game, but only a license to play the game, it doesn't matter anyway.

Re:

[djupedal]

Correct.

Either a copy is legitimate or it isn't.

One million and one stories floating around and our friendly glue-sniffing /. editors (?) skim off something like this.

The feds ran a similar bust back in 2001 or 02, as I recall*. They are tied to coincide with Federal budget announcements and chest-beating by whatever politician needs the publicity at the moment. Give it a few days and the other shoe will drop - you'll see.

I recall because I'd purchased a mod chip, off the internet, from one of t

Re:

[mrjb]

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...

Re:

[Opportunist]

Is it "more illegal" to own 200 modchips than it is to own one? Are modchips like drugs by now?

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:

[Broken scope]

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.

Re:

[Applekid]

The problem is that the DMCA does not make the distinction between bypassing a copying mechanism because it's a hardware-enforced possibly unconscionable company-imposed territorial profit-maximizing restriction and bypassing a copying mechanism because it makes piracy simply possible.

Re:

[Chmcginn]

I don't think Microsoft, Sony, or anyone really wants to make a game console that has to be connected to the internet, especially the bandwidth hogs they have now. It limits their market too much. They'll add a million features to entice people, but I think they know they'd lose a lot of buisness if we couldn't play single-player games without having the console connected.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Well, it worked for an OS to be connected to the 'net at least once every 6 months, I don't think it's far fetched that they'll require the same for game consoles soon, too. It needn't be a permanent connection, can you see people using modchips when they have to go online once a month (and get "updates" crammed down their throat), or do you think that would be too much a deterrent with WiFi becoming more and more mainstream and consoles (see Wii for reference) being able to use WiFi instead of cable based

Re:

[GrayCalx]

I was going to comment on the $3 billion number as well. Where did they get this from? Are they basically counting all of the illegal copies and multiplying that by what the industry would've made? I only ask, because in my case, when in the past I modded my ps1 and xbox and yes I even copied games from friends and downloaded and burned them out. But the majority of those I would never have bought. In fact the only reason I bought a ps1 was because I could copy games, I never would've bought the consol

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:

[ICLKennyG]

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!'

Re:

[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.

Re:

[Opportunist]

The right to copy anything that's no encrypted is moot if everything is encrypted. If it WAS possible to create a 1:1 copy of a game, copy protection and all, it would be quite ok and in sync with fair use. What makes the DMCA break the right of fair use is the fact that exactly that is impossible for most content.

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:

[fozzmeister]

The practicality of the issue, is _nothing_ to do with the law.

Re:

[Silver Sloth]

News For Nerds

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

Re:

[Bender Unit 22]

---[snip]---
"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.
---[snip]---
Aren't they already?
I am not American, so I don't fully understand the concept of the "Homeland Security" police. But they seem to cover everything lobbyists can throw their money at?

Re:

[GrayCalx]

mod chips...illegal assault weapons, drugs, pedophiles, and carjackers next door

Jesus... what the hell is going on in your neighborhood?!