The problem with your whole point is you are rolling everyone who mods a system into one group, and those are the pirates. Yes those are the majority of the group, but they are NOT the only people who 'mod' a system. The reason Xbox live bans 'modded systems' isnt because "OMG you're running Ubuntu on a 360!" it's because they quiet honestly cant tell (for most) what the mod is....If it's a mod chip to play 'pirated' games or a mod to cheat in Modern warfare 2...Cheating and piracy is bad. But modifying my system should NOT be. If I want to open it up, put in better fans, fix the mounting of the graphic chip so it doesnt E74 on me or whatever..I should be ABLE to. But by your words that is against the rules, which is a load of poop
As for ordering a flash cart, no the item itself isnt illegal. As this would be along the same lines of saying "OMG blank DVDs..you're a movie priate!"
Why can you make an NDA with your employer bounding you to not being able to work in the same industry for extended period of time even after you leave the company?
This is a standard procedure.
Why can you claim conditions how photos you are selling will be used, where, what magazine and by whom?
This is a standard procedure.
Why on earth I couldn't do the same with my piece of electronics? It is my IP, and I have a right to defend it like in both cases above.
A piece of electronics is NOT an intellectual property. Any more than a car is. The software is a different story.
Going slightly OT, non-disclosure agreements(as in, can't be employed in the same field for X years) are a full on ASSAULT on individual liberties. I even saw one drawn up that declared that ideas I had come up with ON MY OWN TIME were the property of my company. I didn't sign it and stood my ground. My company blinked and I've not since been approached with one of those travesties. Others haven't been so lucky. DISGUSTING.
I really hope this does go to court, because software EULAs and certain provisons of the DCMA are likely not to survive legal scruitny
In general, many software EULAs have been found (in the few cases that it has actually gone to court) to be defective and unenforcable because several of their provisions violate any number of consumer protection laws. According to the DCMA, a person is not allowed to resell a legitimate copy of software to another person, once the "activation code" has been used. This specifically has already been found to be faulty in a couple of cases (in both Federal and state courts), with the court saying that the physical software was esssentially no different than an music CD or a Buick (for that matter), that if something is legally purchased, than it can be legally resold with full ownership and use rights.
Aside from that, the problem that Microsoft is going to have, should this go to court is the following question: Is XboxLive functionality crucial to the operation of the Xbox platform, as advertized, or is it a service, seperate from the platform itself.
Microsoft is not saying it is illegal to mod your Xbox (because technically, it is not illegal, under the eyes of the law, once you legally purchase the Xbox, you can paint it green, install a cappucino machine or install a V-8), MS is saying it is illegal to mod your Xbox AND use it on their net.
If it is found that Xboxlive is crucial to the correct and expected operation of the Xbox360, as advertised and commonly used, and, under some MS policy, they are denying access to Xboxlive, they are in effect violating any number of consumer protection laws, because people can not use the product they bought, as advertised. MS can say that modding your XBox is illegal, but they would have a hell of a time proving it, because under a strict read of most statutes, it isn't. Just because a EULA claims something is illegal, does not make it so.
If it is found that Xbox live is a seperate and distinct service, wholly seperate from normal XBox360 use and operation, MS can ban anyone they want. I think they would have a tough time proving this, since they advertise the "service" as a feature on the box of any XBox360 seen on the shelves.
Originally posted by Robsolf A piece of electronics is NOT an intellectual property. Any more than a car is. The software is a different story. Going slightly OT, non-disclosure agreements(as in, can't be employed in the same field for X years) are a full on ASSAULT on individual liberties. I even saw one drawn up that declared that ideas I had come up with ON MY OWN TIME were the property of my company. I didn't sign it and stood my ground. My company blinked and I've not since been approached with one of those travesties. Others haven't been so lucky. DISGUSTING.
Not the box as such but the technology. Once you modd it, you can't pretend it is the same thing.
I do believe that the owner of the box has the right to apply TOS even for the box. Why?
You can play the song I composed on any instrument but it will be illegal without my auhorization . It will be also illegal to perform my song slightly changed. Then, why it should be considered legal modify the device I constructed?
Wheter the IP is independent on medium or not, I should have the same rights to defend it and as such, protect the medium which is essential part of it.
You do the same with audio records or other anti-pirate protections. Why should piece of electronics be any different? When you are changing the device that it won't work as intended design, you are not only stealing my own IP but hurt my revenues.
Modding your fans is a different thing altogether, modding the card sure but I don't see why you would? There isn't that great a benefit to spending time doing that at least not with a good return of time. However I was talking mod chips ones that can load up even ubuntu are illegal.
Mod chips have been found 100% in America and the UK to be illegal in all cases. If this went to court MS would win almost instantly, the case would be thrown out of court so fast the prosecutor wouldn't even be able to make more then an opening statement. All mod chips the very definition of the word mod chip means to circumvent copyright protection.
Let this be the end all be all of posts if you live in a country with a DMCA like clause such as the UK US and the current growing trend of Japan as well which got the R4 flash cart banned.
Now what is copyright protection and what does your fancy mumbo jump circumvention mean? Well you see copyright protection is a software that stops you from doing whatever you want with the console. It limits your use and says this is what we allow and this is our protection that says you won't do anything we don't want you to do. Now the reason you have a mod chip is because you need to get around it to get access to your console. By doing so you are breaking that copyright protection and in courts both here in America and the UK it has been found unanimously illegal. I have posted links in previous posts, I have said it over and over this topic for Americans and people in the UK is an old dead issue, no matter what your if ands or buts are the bottom line is its illegal move on with your life.
If you want to debate the moral issue thats fine, but don't pretend like what you are doing isn't illegal it is. Oh yeah flash carts? yeah they are illegal. R4 got banned in japan nintendo forced amazon and ebay to take down all flash carts. There have been tons of raids done by ICE that confiscated/arrested owners and sellers of flash carts. They are a mod chip and ICE has made it perfectly clear that the law doesn't favor you as the consumer. You do not matter, you are breaking the law by using a mod chip thats a fact and no matter what your intentions are its illegal.
I'd post links to back it up if I hadn't been repeating myself in earlier posts. Hell theres even part of the DMCA in one of my posts declaring all this nonsense null and void and stating clearly that its illegal.
Modding your fans is a different thing altogether, modding the card sure but I don't see why you would? There isn't that great a benefit to spending time doing that at least not with a good return of time. However I was talking mod chips ones that can load up even ubuntu are illegal. Mod chips have been found 100% in America and the UK to be illegal in all cases. If this went to court MS would win almost instantly, the case would be thrown out of court so fast the prosecutor wouldn't even be able to make more then an opening statement. All mod chips the very definition of the word mod chip means to circumvent copyright protection. Let this be the end all be all of posts if you live in a country with a DMCA like clause such as the UK US and the current growing trend of Japan as well which got the R4 flash cart banned. Now what is copyright protection and what does your fancy mumbo jump circumvention mean? Well you see copyright protection is a software that stops you from doing whatever you want with the console. It limits your use and says this is what we allow and this is our protection that says you won't do anything we don't want you to do. Now the reason you have a mod chip is because you need to get around it to get access to your console. By doing so you are breaking that copyright protection and in courts both here in America and the UK it has been found unanimously illegal. I have posted links in previous posts, I have said it over and over this topic for Americans and people in the UK is an old dead issue, no matter what your if ands or buts are the bottom line is its illegal move on with your life. If you want to debate the moral issue thats fine, but don't pretend like what you are doing isn't illegal it is. Oh yeah flash carts? yeah they are illegal. R4 got banned in japan nintendo forced amazon and ebay to take down all flash carts. There have been tons of raids done by ICE that confiscated/arrested owners and sellers of flash carts. They are a mod chip and ICE has made it perfectly clear that the law doesn't favor you as the consumer. You do not matter, you are breaking the law by using a mod chip thats a fact and no matter what your intentions are its illegal. I'd post links to back it up if I hadn't been repeating myself in earlier posts. Hell theres even part of the DMCA in one of my posts declaring all this nonsense null and void and stating clearly that its illegal.
That's cool and all, but nothing you say, or I say, makes a damn bit of difference.
It is the opinion of the court(s) that holds weight.
It is not a settled issue, and parts of the DMCA have already been found to be not enforceable as a matter of law, although no court has stuck down the law in its entirely or filed sweeping injunctions.
A law itself, especially one governing new areas of technology, is not "set in stone" until is survives the first several legal challenges, despite anything the law "says". By definition, the courts determine what is "legal".
I agree in some respects, but you also realize that every year ICE grabs a few hundred to a couple thousand people that end up going to court, and a rather large percentage end up being fined/jailed. The DMCA/ICE has been doing this sort of thing since roughly 2007, so at current for the 2 years that they have been taking an active stance on enforcing DMCA policy my stance holds true. Its debatable if it will continue since no one knows, but as it stands they are illegal and ICE with a large amount of success has so far proven my point true.
A piece of electronics is NOT an intellectual property. Any more than a car is. The software is a different story. Going slightly OT, non-disclosure agreements(as in, can't be employed in the same field for X years) are a full on ASSAULT on individual liberties. I even saw one drawn up that declared that ideas I had come up with ON MY OWN TIME were the property of my company. I didn't sign it and stood my ground. My company blinked and I've not since been approached with one of those travesties. Others haven't been so lucky. DISGUSTING.
Not the box as such but the technology. Once you modd it, you can't pretend it is the same thing.
I do believe that the owner of the box has the right to apply TOS even for the box.
I agree... the person who owns the box(the customer) has the right to apply their own TOS to the box.
Why?
You can play the song I composed on any instrument but it will be illegal without my auhorization . It will be also illegal to perform my song slightly changed.
Then, why it should be considered legal modify the device I constructed?
Wheter the IP is independent on medium or not, I should have the same rights to defend it and as such, protect the medium which is essential part of it.
You do the same with audio records or other anti-pirate protections.
Why should piece of electronics be any different? When you are changing the device that it won't work as intended design, you are not only stealing my own IP but hurt my revenues.
Don't I have a right to defend myself?
You are overgeneralizing to an extent that is clearly not in sync with the law.
By your account, Auto Manufacturers could sue aftermarket manufacturers for providing parts; they cannot.
They could sue independent (non-dealership)garages for servicing a car, and/or modifying it. They cannot.
They could sue the purchasers of their vehicle for putting tasteless bumper stickers on the vehicle they produced. They clearly cannot do this.
The point of the intellectual property laws was to provide value for intangible assets in the marketplace. Items that are largely ideas that can be easily copied, and thus would have little value if not protected by law. IP laws don't protect tangible property as it's not necessary; you can't scribble on a piece of paper and have a working Xbox or intake manifold. The design is protected by patent laws, but the box itself is not protected.
IP laws exist because you can write down lyrics to another persons song and sell it as your own easily enough, were there not a law protecting the songwriters/owners IP assets.
On your last question, they certainly can defend themselves. They can do what RIAA did and sue their customers and users who post pirated iso's on the internet. They can deny access to their service. They can report modified boxes to the FBI, and provide any information allowed by law. They can build their future boxes in a way which makes it difficult and/or impossible to mod for pirate playback.
But the crime is not the modification. The crime is the piracy.
companies are fighting a losing battle to the nature of mankind
we have been sharing things before companies existed. and trying to put chains on things, at the very core their nature is to be shared, is pointless.
It won't stop, it will never stop, they cannot win against any form of sharing.
That's not true, people who illegaly share things cause a bigger invasion of privacy for the rest of us.
With the technology age more and more people are connected to the internet 24/7. Companies are now using that to check unique licenses for different products. Also now all PC hardware (and I assume console hardware) has unique identifiers. This allows companies to track past an IP to the actual computer, and allows bans based on those levels.
Essentially more and more companies are forced to monitor their customers. It won't be long before we have to log online to verify ourselves as a valid user to turn on a product. Making it much easier to stop sharing. Companies do respond to this, fortunatly the impacts tends to be small on legal users, but it does cause an increase amount of invasion of privacy.
Digital download will become the norm, along with logging in your account to play your video games. Same will spread to movies/music and all other normally used items.
companies are fighting a losing battle to the nature of mankind
we have been sharing things before companies existed. and trying to put chains on things, at the very core their nature is to be shared, is pointless.
It won't stop, it will never stop, they cannot win against any form of sharing.
That's not true, people who illegaly share things cause a bigger invasion of privacy for the rest of us.
With the technology age more and more people are connected to the internet 24/7. Companies are now using that to check unique licenses for different products. Also now all PC hardware (and I assume console hardware) has unique identifiers. This allows companies to track past an IP to the actual computer, and allows bans based on those levels.
Essentially more and more companies are forced to monitor their customers. It won't be long before we have to log online to verify ourselves as a valid user to turn on a product. Making it much easier to stop sharing. Companies do respond to this, fortunatly the impacts tends to be small on legal users, but it does cause an increase amount of invasion of privacy.
Digital download will become the norm, along with logging in your account to play your video games. Same will spread to movies/music and all other normally used items.
Lotso truth there! It's getting pretty creepy, these days. And particularly frustrating for system builders. Hard to tell what pieces of hardware I can replace on my PC before my system builder copy of W7 becomes invalid.
But I do know this. Whenever companies start treating ALL their customers like criminals, it's usually hurts them more than helps them.
Why shouldnt it be allowed to modify something you bought? Microsoft doesnt own it, i do. For example: you buy a car and changes engine in it, now your not allowed to drive on the motorway anymore... Does it sound correct?
Um, about the XBox I agree, about your car...you might want to look into your states licensing laws, cause most will void your vehicle registration if you do something like replace the engine without getting it inspected by a certified mechanic afterwards...the state has a right to protect the safety of other drivers on the road by make sure that your car is safe.
Originally posted by Robsolf You are overgeneralizing to an extent that is clearly not in sync with the law. By your account, Auto Manufacturers could sue aftermarket manufacturers for providing parts; they cannot. They could sue independent (non-dealership)garages for servicing a car, and/or modifying it. They cannot. They could sue the purchasers of their vehicle for putting tasteless bumper stickers on the vehicle they produced. They clearly cannot do this. The point of the intellectual property laws was to provide value for intangible assets in the marketplace. Items that are largely ideas that can be easily copied, and thus would have little value if not protected by law. IP laws don't protect tangible property as it's not necessary; you can't scribble on a piece of paper and have a working Xbox or intake manifold. The design is protected by patent laws, but the box itself is not protected. IP laws exist because you can write down lyrics to another persons song and sell it as your own easily enough, were there not a law protecting the songwriters/owners IP assets. On your last question, they certainly can defend themselves. They can do what RIAA did and sue their customers and users who post pirated iso's on the internet. They can deny access to their service. They can report modified boxes to the FBI, and provide any information allowed by law. They can build their future boxes in a way which makes it difficult and/or impossible to mod for pirate playback. But the crime is not the modification. The crime is the piracy.
I did not generalize, that was your job.
IP laws exists so you don't mod the device to use it the way the copyright protection was preventing you and as such, device manufacturer is obliged to deny you access from intended use because the device is no longer working as intended by your own intervention.
It is the same as if you mod your car engine to use CNG and dealership garages that normaly are bound to accept a repair, refused your request. Mod it as much as you want until it does not change intended design and use.
There was a case in California some years ago, about Sony suing a reseller, who was buying PS2s, moding them with the chips to play games from Japan and then selling them.
Sony filed suit to stop the guy, citing all kinds of things that have been mentioned in the thread, breaking copy protection, IP violations, and a whole laundry list of things.
The suit, was thrown out by the judge at one of the preliminary hearings, citing 2 factors:
1. That Sony had failed to demonstrate any real damages, in the form of lost / loss of revenue from the the Defendant's actions because: A. The Defendant was buying the PS2 legally, from a legal vendor, B. No damages could be established because the "ripped" consoles would only play games not legally available / released in the market where these modified consoles were sold. As Sony, could not make any money selling legal copies of the software in the US market, because the games were not released there, Sony could not say they were potentially losing money by people using the mod'd consoles.
2. The reseller was selling the consoles as "used" and not "new" product, and was disclosing them as such. The court found that an OEM may control how their products are sold and/or distributed, to a certain extent, but this only applied to NEW merchandise. So long as the product was being sold in "used" condition, the OEM has no say.
I do not know if Sony ever refiled after this was thrown out, I am trying to find the case citation for a full transcript.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves.
Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves. Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves. Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
You don't give politicians and attorneys enough credit bud. They are the ones that makes laws that run the government which takes your money everyday.
You can't even die without paying for it, what a system.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves. Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves. Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
They were denying it BECAUSE they broke the rules. The fact they took their money first has nothing to do with it.
Do you WANT all the Asian Farmers to be able to sue because a MMO took their money AND THEN BANNED THEM.
Or should those Asian Farmers get their money back too?
I don't see a problem with MS taking advantage of the Pirates greed. Taking the thieves money is the LEAST they should get.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves. Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
They were denying it BECAUSE they broke the rules. The fact they took their money first has nothing to do with it.
Do you WANT all the Asian Farmers to be able to sue because a MMO took their money AND THEN BANNED THEM.
Or should those Asian Farmers get their money back too?
I don't see a problem with MS taking advantage of the Pirates greed. Taking the thieves money is the LEAST they should get.
ROFL.
Think of the irony.
LOL.
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
EDIT: You could also mention irony at consumers pirating games off a company that times bannings to ensure the maximum amount of money is sucked from their customer base for services that will not be delivered.
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
When you break the rules you forfeit your already spent money.
It's not like Microsoft raided these people's houses and took back the modded 360s. They banned them from a service after they blatantly broke the rules involved with using that service.
Don't break the rules then cry that you got caught and punished, anytime you break any rule you do so at a risk. So tired of people not taking responsibility for their own ridiculous and stupid actions.
They can buy a new Xbox and get a new subscription (HAHA I have a PS3 and don't have to pay btw) and STILL play the game. MS isn't coming over to their home and breaking their COD4 dvd?
Or are they... DUN DUN DUN
That will likely be a part of Microsoft's defense. The question is whether the online component of COD4 was part of the reason for people to buy the game. Likely this is all stuff that will be debated vigorously in the courts.
Personally I don't see why you should have to pay for online components in the first place (a la PS3), which is why I never subscribed to xbox live.
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
When you break the rules you forfeit your already spent money.
It's not like Microsoft raided these people's houses and took back the modded 360s. They banned them from a service after they blatantly broke the rules involved with using that service.
Don't break the rules then cry that you got caught and punished, anytime you break any rule you do so at a risk. So tired of people not taking responsibility for their own ridiculous and stupid actions.
The question is whether MS knew these people had broken the rules, but delayed the enforcement of said rules to ensure they still got money off these people due to COD4s release.
The argument isn't about whether these people deserve their bans.
Comments
Why can you make an NDA with your employer bounding you to not being able to work in the same industry for extended period of time even after you leave the company?
This is a standard procedure.
Why can you claim conditions how photos you are selling will be used, where, what magazine and by whom?
This is a standard procedure.
Why on earth I couldn't do the same with my piece of electronics? It is my IP, and I have a right to defend it like in both cases above.
A piece of electronics is NOT an intellectual property. Any more than a car is. The software is a different story.
Going slightly OT, non-disclosure agreements(as in, can't be employed in the same field for X years) are a full on ASSAULT on individual liberties. I even saw one drawn up that declared that ideas I had come up with ON MY OWN TIME were the property of my company. I didn't sign it and stood my ground. My company blinked and I've not since been approached with one of those travesties. Others haven't been so lucky. DISGUSTING.
I really hope this does go to court, because software EULAs and certain provisons of the DCMA are likely not to survive legal scruitny
In general, many software EULAs have been found (in the few cases that it has actually gone to court) to be defective and unenforcable because several of their provisions violate any number of consumer protection laws. According to the DCMA, a person is not allowed to resell a legitimate copy of software to another person, once the "activation code" has been used. This specifically has already been found to be faulty in a couple of cases (in both Federal and state courts), with the court saying that the physical software was esssentially no different than an music CD or a Buick (for that matter), that if something is legally purchased, than it can be legally resold with full ownership and use rights.
Aside from that, the problem that Microsoft is going to have, should this go to court is the following question: Is XboxLive functionality crucial to the operation of the Xbox platform, as advertized, or is it a service, seperate from the platform itself.
Microsoft is not saying it is illegal to mod your Xbox (because technically, it is not illegal, under the eyes of the law, once you legally purchase the Xbox, you can paint it green, install a cappucino machine or install a V-8), MS is saying it is illegal to mod your Xbox AND use it on their net.
If it is found that Xboxlive is crucial to the correct and expected operation of the Xbox360, as advertised and commonly used, and, under some MS policy, they are denying access to Xboxlive, they are in effect violating any number of consumer protection laws, because people can not use the product they bought, as advertised. MS can say that modding your XBox is illegal, but they would have a hell of a time proving it, because under a strict read of most statutes, it isn't. Just because a EULA claims something is illegal, does not make it so.
If it is found that Xbox live is a seperate and distinct service, wholly seperate from normal XBox360 use and operation, MS can ban anyone they want. I think they would have a tough time proving this, since they advertise the "service" as a feature on the box of any XBox360 seen on the shelves.
Time will tell...
Not the box as such but the technology. Once you modd it, you can't pretend it is the same thing.
I do believe that the owner of the box has the right to apply TOS even for the box.
Why?
You can play the song I composed on any instrument but it will be illegal without my auhorization . It will be also illegal to perform my song slightly changed.
Then, why it should be considered legal modify the device I constructed?
Wheter the IP is independent on medium or not, I should have the same rights to defend it and as such, protect the medium which is essential part of it.
You do the same with audio records or other anti-pirate protections.
Why should piece of electronics be any different? When you are changing the device that it won't work as intended design, you are not only stealing my own IP but hurt my revenues.
Don't I have a right to defend myself?
Modding your fans is a different thing altogether, modding the card sure but I don't see why you would? There isn't that great a benefit to spending time doing that at least not with a good return of time. However I was talking mod chips ones that can load up even ubuntu are illegal.
Mod chips have been found 100% in America and the UK to be illegal in all cases. If this went to court MS would win almost instantly, the case would be thrown out of court so fast the prosecutor wouldn't even be able to make more then an opening statement. All mod chips the very definition of the word mod chip means to circumvent copyright protection.
Let this be the end all be all of posts if you live in a country with a DMCA like clause such as the UK US and the current growing trend of Japan as well which got the R4 flash cart banned.
Now what is copyright protection and what does your fancy mumbo jump circumvention mean? Well you see copyright protection is a software that stops you from doing whatever you want with the console. It limits your use and says this is what we allow and this is our protection that says you won't do anything we don't want you to do. Now the reason you have a mod chip is because you need to get around it to get access to your console. By doing so you are breaking that copyright protection and in courts both here in America and the UK it has been found unanimously illegal. I have posted links in previous posts, I have said it over and over this topic for Americans and people in the UK is an old dead issue, no matter what your if ands or buts are the bottom line is its illegal move on with your life.
If you want to debate the moral issue thats fine, but don't pretend like what you are doing isn't illegal it is. Oh yeah flash carts? yeah they are illegal. R4 got banned in japan nintendo forced amazon and ebay to take down all flash carts. There have been tons of raids done by ICE that confiscated/arrested owners and sellers of flash carts. They are a mod chip and ICE has made it perfectly clear that the law doesn't favor you as the consumer. You do not matter, you are breaking the law by using a mod chip thats a fact and no matter what your intentions are its illegal.
I'd post links to back it up if I hadn't been repeating myself in earlier posts. Hell theres even part of the DMCA in one of my posts declaring all this nonsense null and void and stating clearly that its illegal.
That's cool and all, but nothing you say, or I say, makes a damn bit of difference.
It is the opinion of the court(s) that holds weight.
It is not a settled issue, and parts of the DMCA have already been found to be not enforceable as a matter of law, although no court has stuck down the law in its entirely or filed sweeping injunctions.
A law itself, especially one governing new areas of technology, is not "set in stone" until is survives the first several legal challenges, despite anything the law "says". By definition, the courts determine what is "legal".
That is what we might be seeing here.
companies are fighting a losing battle to the nature of mankind
we have been sharing things before companies existed.
and trying to put chains on things, at the very core their nature is to be shared, is pointless.
It won't stop, it will never stop, they cannot win against any form of sharing.
I agree in some respects, but you also realize that every year ICE grabs a few hundred to a couple thousand people that end up going to court, and a rather large percentage end up being fined/jailed. The DMCA/ICE has been doing this sort of thing since roughly 2007, so at current for the 2 years that they have been taking an active stance on enforcing DMCA policy my stance holds true. Its debatable if it will continue since no one knows, but as it stands they are illegal and ICE with a large amount of success has so far proven my point true.
Not the box as such but the technology. Once you modd it, you can't pretend it is the same thing.
I do believe that the owner of the box has the right to apply TOS even for the box.
I agree... the person who owns the box(the customer) has the right to apply their own TOS to the box.
Why?
You can play the song I composed on any instrument but it will be illegal without my auhorization . It will be also illegal to perform my song slightly changed.
Then, why it should be considered legal modify the device I constructed?
Wheter the IP is independent on medium or not, I should have the same rights to defend it and as such, protect the medium which is essential part of it.
You do the same with audio records or other anti-pirate protections.
Why should piece of electronics be any different? When you are changing the device that it won't work as intended design, you are not only stealing my own IP but hurt my revenues.
Don't I have a right to defend myself?
You are overgeneralizing to an extent that is clearly not in sync with the law.
By your account, Auto Manufacturers could sue aftermarket manufacturers for providing parts; they cannot.
They could sue independent (non-dealership)garages for servicing a car, and/or modifying it. They cannot.
They could sue the purchasers of their vehicle for putting tasteless bumper stickers on the vehicle they produced. They clearly cannot do this.
The point of the intellectual property laws was to provide value for intangible assets in the marketplace. Items that are largely ideas that can be easily copied, and thus would have little value if not protected by law. IP laws don't protect tangible property as it's not necessary; you can't scribble on a piece of paper and have a working Xbox or intake manifold. The design is protected by patent laws, but the box itself is not protected.
IP laws exist because you can write down lyrics to another persons song and sell it as your own easily enough, were there not a law protecting the songwriters/owners IP assets.
On your last question, they certainly can defend themselves. They can do what RIAA did and sue their customers and users who post pirated iso's on the internet. They can deny access to their service. They can report modified boxes to the FBI, and provide any information allowed by law. They can build their future boxes in a way which makes it difficult and/or impossible to mod for pirate playback.
But the crime is not the modification. The crime is the piracy.
That's not true, people who illegaly share things cause a bigger invasion of privacy for the rest of us.
With the technology age more and more people are connected to the internet 24/7. Companies are now using that to check unique licenses for different products. Also now all PC hardware (and I assume console hardware) has unique identifiers. This allows companies to track past an IP to the actual computer, and allows bans based on those levels.
Essentially more and more companies are forced to monitor their customers. It won't be long before we have to log online to verify ourselves as a valid user to turn on a product. Making it much easier to stop sharing. Companies do respond to this, fortunatly the impacts tends to be small on legal users, but it does cause an increase amount of invasion of privacy.
Digital download will become the norm, along with logging in your account to play your video games. Same will spread to movies/music and all other normally used items.
any code written by man can be undone by man
it won't stop
That's not true, people who illegaly share things cause a bigger invasion of privacy for the rest of us.
With the technology age more and more people are connected to the internet 24/7. Companies are now using that to check unique licenses for different products. Also now all PC hardware (and I assume console hardware) has unique identifiers. This allows companies to track past an IP to the actual computer, and allows bans based on those levels.
Essentially more and more companies are forced to monitor their customers. It won't be long before we have to log online to verify ourselves as a valid user to turn on a product. Making it much easier to stop sharing. Companies do respond to this, fortunatly the impacts tends to be small on legal users, but it does cause an increase amount of invasion of privacy.
Digital download will become the norm, along with logging in your account to play your video games. Same will spread to movies/music and all other normally used items.
Lotso truth there! It's getting pretty creepy, these days. And particularly frustrating for system builders. Hard to tell what pieces of hardware I can replace on my PC before my system builder copy of W7 becomes invalid.
But I do know this. Whenever companies start treating ALL their customers like criminals, it's usually hurts them more than helps them.
Um, about the XBox I agree, about your car...you might want to look into your states licensing laws, cause most will void your vehicle registration if you do something like replace the engine without getting it inspected by a certified mechanic afterwards...the state has a right to protect the safety of other drivers on the road by make sure that your car is safe.
IP laws exists so you don't mod the device to use it the way the copyright protection was preventing you and as such, device manufacturer is obliged to deny you access from intended use because the device is no longer working as intended by your own intervention.
It is the same as if you mod your car engine to use CNG and dealership garages that normaly are bound to accept a repair, refused your request.
Mod it as much as you want until it does not change intended design and use.
funny
There was a case in California some years ago, about Sony suing a reseller, who was buying PS2s, moding them with the chips to play games from Japan and then selling them.
Sony filed suit to stop the guy, citing all kinds of things that have been mentioned in the thread, breaking copy protection, IP violations, and a whole laundry list of things.
The suit, was thrown out by the judge at one of the preliminary hearings, citing 2 factors:
I do not know if Sony ever refiled after this was thrown out, I am trying to find the case citation for a full transcript.
Surprised no one has mentioned the fact that the class action lawsuit isn't taking aim at the XBox live TOS , but mainly at the fact that the bannings were timed so as not to disrupt the XBox Live subscription spike generated from the release of COD4, and the sales of COD4 themselves.
Alot of people in this thread get all hot under the collar about "stealing" from developers, but no one seems to be aknowledging the fact that the bannings were timed perfectly to get maximum fleeceage (that's not a word I know) out of the customer base. Big corporations are better at thievery than anyone else on the planet.
MUNDO!!
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
-JUSTIN DURAN-
You don't give politicians and attorneys enough credit bud. They are the ones that makes laws that run the government which takes your money everyday.
You can't even die without paying for it, what a system.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
MUNDO!!
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
They were denying it BECAUSE they broke the rules. The fact they took their money first has nothing to do with it.
Do you WANT all the Asian Farmers to be able to sue because a MMO took their money AND THEN BANNED THEM.
Or should those Asian Farmers get their money back too?
I don't see a problem with MS taking advantage of the Pirates greed. Taking the thieves money is the LEAST they should get.
ROFL.
Think of the irony.
LOL.
Honestly it serves them right. Every modchip and firmware flashing kits (plus their respective programs) clearly warn users about the possibility of being banned from XBL; furthermore, if you're going to play pirated games, don't do it on a console, which it's manufacturer can identify and block you from using THEIR network. I can't see this making too much of an impact unless a stronger case than crying over less money than the games themselves cost, and i freaking hate Microsoft's death-grip on it's systems.
But whether these people deserved their bans for modding isn't so much the issue, and the prevalence of pirated games isn't even mentioned in this case. The issue is that MS timed the bans to allow for the spike in XBL subs and sales generated by COD4. That could be construed as fleecing customers, and I don't see why people get so up in arms about pirates "stealing" off the poor little massive corporations but completely ignore the fact that MS may have accepted payment from people they were about to deny service to.
They were denying it BECAUSE they broke the rules. The fact they took their money first has nothing to do with it.
Do you WANT all the Asian Farmers to be able to sue because a MMO took their money AND THEN BANNED THEM.
Or should those Asian Farmers get their money back too?
I don't see a problem with MS taking advantage of the Pirates greed. Taking the thieves money is the LEAST they should get.
ROFL.
Think of the irony.
LOL.
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
EDIT: You could also mention irony at consumers pirating games off a company that times bannings to ensure the maximum amount of money is sucked from their customer base for services that will not be delivered.
MUNDO!!
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
When you break the rules you forfeit your already spent money.
It's not like Microsoft raided these people's houses and took back the modded 360s. They banned them from a service after they blatantly broke the rules involved with using that service.
Don't break the rules then cry that you got caught and punished, anytime you break any rule you do so at a risk. So tired of people not taking responsibility for their own ridiculous and stupid actions.
MS isn't preventing them playing COD4.
They can buy a new Xbox and get a new subscription (HAHA I have a PS3 and don't have to pay btw) and STILL play the game.
MS isn't coming over to their home and breaking their COD4 dvd?
Or are they...
DUN DUN DUN
That will likely be a part of Microsoft's defense. The question is whether the online component of COD4 was part of the reason for people to buy the game. Likely this is all stuff that will be debated vigorously in the courts.
Personally I don't see why you should have to pay for online components in the first place (a la PS3), which is why I never subscribed to xbox live.
MUNDO!!
You meantion stealing, and thievery. What if someone got banned who had only modded their xbox, but did not pirate any games right after shelling $150 for COD4 and XBL subscriptions?
When you break the rules you forfeit your already spent money.
It's not like Microsoft raided these people's houses and took back the modded 360s. They banned them from a service after they blatantly broke the rules involved with using that service.
Don't break the rules then cry that you got caught and punished, anytime you break any rule you do so at a risk. So tired of people not taking responsibility for their own ridiculous and stupid actions.
The question is whether MS knew these people had broken the rules, but delayed the enforcement of said rules to ensure they still got money off these people due to COD4s release.
The argument isn't about whether these people deserve their bans.
MUNDO!!