More on Microsoft vs. Lik Sang 573
Levendis47 writes "CNET's News.com is running an article on Microsoft's legal manuevers which have successfully shut down the Lik Sang ecomm store where they've been selling various game system mod chips including the OpenXBox Mod Chip. This leads me to two questions (and I'll admit my ignorance, faux or not, in order to get discussion on this topic): 1) When a customer purchases an XBox (or any game system for that matter) are you intrinsically "signing" an end-user agreement in the purchase that makes modding the device illegal? 2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?) 3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such? It would seem to me that in the long haul, Microsoft would support such efforts because they could sell more devices (and potentially more software if they licensed an opensource validation library)... "
Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much of a precendent that can make for the Kazaa case, among others...
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
true. In the skydiving industry, many companies refuse to sell their products in the US. Granted that this is because of the litigous nature of the US, and not related to any specific law. My point, which I think is valid and relevant, is that companies ARE avoiding doing business in the US because of fear of the courts - criminal OR civil.
The following European manufacturers will ship to Canada but not the US:
Thomas Sports Equitment [thomas-sports.com]
Parachute de France [parachutes-de-france.com]
ParAAvis Co [paraavis.com]
_Am
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
You deal with americans, you deal with their laws.
Except: The US laws do not apply where it could inconvenience any US company.
Proof: The recent lawsuit against the tabacco companies, where the payout was in the millions. An Australian is going to try the same thing, but US law only allows a maximum of 30% of a US-based payout to be given to overseas claims. However, a US company (or person) can claim damaged, etc from another country that could total that county's yearly exports.
And yet, this is considered fair. Just because the US has nuclear weapons, and other politicians are weak-willed brown-nosers.
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an American, and I'm proud to be one - if only because my standard of living is above most of the rest of the world.
It's more than the USA having nukes, tho. We have the most powerfull conventional military on the planet, too. But it's more than military force. It's the "American Dream". We still give everyone the chance to make more of themselves here in the USA. It seems like most americans have either forgotten that or become lazy. Maybe both.
The rest of the world knows, tho. We still get people from all over the world comming here - working hard (something unfamiliar to most americans) and making something for themselves. They're making lots of money and supporting families in other countries.
Well, that was a bit tangential and all. But it's not the people here in the USA anymore... It's money and business. Kinda perverts the word Democracy.
Re:Nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true at all. You have no more chance of getting an equal opportunity in the US than you do in numerous other countries; possibly less opportunity. Americans can't see it, probably because they think the world begins and ends at their borders, but for the rest of the world the US is definitely no longer first choice when considering migration. Possibly better communications have made more people aware that they will have few employee protections there and have a much greater chance of being exploited by their employer than in many other countries.
Re:Nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not mere greed. The problem is that the elderly people dying of lung cancer are probably going to end up relying on the public dole for their medical bills, so they might as well start paying for them now (or funding new sports arenas, but I digress...)
America owns Europe? (Score:5, Informative)
Same likely holds for the US versus Japan. The US got itself into quite a tizzy a few years ago after Sony bought one of the big entertainment conglamerates and some other Japanese corp bought Rockefeller Center in NYC.
That trade deficit does a lot to keep the worst excesses of the US in check. If we get too nasty, we would be unable to pay for all of the foreign goods we import. Of course it works both ways. Without the US trade deficit, European unemployment would be horrific instead of merely intolerable.
Re:Nice... (Score:4, Funny)
If you lived in Florida.. (Score:3, Funny)
Are you sure ??? (Score:5, Informative)
If a company has assets in the US then they can be taken to court in the US but if they do not then there is nothing a US court can do, they do not even have an address to write to. M$ frequently tries to give the impression that they are able to apply there US values elsewhere but it does not work. Look at some of the European copyright cases, they cannot get their licenses to hold up in Europe. They prosecute under other laws, like fruad etc. and claim it as a victory against the sea borne bandits but it is just an ordinary case under ordinary European law.
I do not know any more about this case than I have read but I have not read anything that suggests that anything strange happened. China is having a crack down on things like this and would have been happy to use their own legal system to support M$.
Xbox-Linux project (Score:5, Informative)
They say you need a modded Xbox machine to use it and they are using this clause against possible DMCA issue :
Everything done on this project is for the sole purpose of writing interoperable software under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA.
So they are perfectly legal imho...
So sue me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So sue me. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's far from certain or correct:
A) Whether the mod chips are "circumvention devices" is certainly matter a debate. Witness a recent Sony case [com.com] in Australia (whose law is similar to the U.S.'s DMCA), which found the chips not to be a "circumvention device" under the law. And thus, not illegal.
B) There's a very good chance the chips do not contain any code that is copyrighted by MS. They don't need to. They might reverse-engineer some technical information, and use that to create their own code, but that is not the same as copying MS code, and does not infringe on any MS copyrights.
C) The names may infringe on trademarks, but that does not make the product itself illegal. It just makes selling it under that name illegal - the company could still sell the product under a non-trademark-infringing name.
Yes. That's how courts work. You sue or are sued. A judge decides.
The alternative is no courts, just executive authority to arrest/imprision/confiscate. That has a history of working really well. You think corporations are too powerful now?
Judges toss lawsuits everyday of the week. Its a routine part of the legal system.
I think you're missing the larger, implicit point of the previous poster's comment. It's not that we shouldn't have a judicial system, it's that the current system has a significant bias towards those with wealth. I.e. someone with wealth can afford to file a suit they know is without merit, because it will cost the target of the suit legal fees. If the target doesn't have the money for a lawyer, the wealthy (corporation or individual) essentially wins by default because the target has to stop doing what they're doing, regardless of if it's actually legal. Sure, the suit will eventually get tossed, but in the meantime those bills sure add up fast. Many people can't afford that.
The solution isn't to scrap the legal/judicial system, it's to improve it. How to do that is an interesting and complex question. It's not clear how to easily discourage this sort of legal skirmishing without discouraging legitimate claims as well.
Re:So sue me. (Score:3, Funny)
>correct. The mod chips are illegal under current
>law. They are circumvention devices. They contain
>copyrighted code. The names probably even infringe
>on trademark.
I have an idea. Let's get Compaq to make a drop in replacement but non-infringing XBox BIOS chip. The user could have complete control over the whole XBox setup and security process.
They, Compaq/HP, would need to make getting into the BIOS easier though... I never can remember the exact keystrokes on a Compaq.
No really!
Re:So sue me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can and can't do with hardware that I purchased, but it happens everyday. My cable company told me I couldn't modify my box to get free pay-per-view. When I left them, my satellite company said I couldn't modify my card to get all the channels. (I have a friend who PAYS for all the channels, but he has a hacked card, because he wants to see the local networks, and because the cable companies are so greedy, his satellite provider couldn't offer it.) My cell phone provider tells me I can't modify my phone's ESN so that I can have TWO phones with ONE number, so I can leave one in the car and not have to pay a second monthly fee and for more minutes. So, let's don't single MS out, because they aren't the only ones doing this. That doesn't make them right, but look at the whole picture. Not only is this attacking the software giant, but also the Communications industry giants. Laws don't matter when there is that much money behind it.
Re:So sue me. (Score:3, Informative)
There's a difference in services though. While you pay for an Xbox, you own it, and should be able do what you want to it, but you don't own your cable box, it's still the property of the cable company, well, unless you buy one. However, the cable company still pays a fee to the companies that provide it content so you can have something to watch, so by modding a cable box to get free anything, you're cheating the cable company, and causing a real loss. The same goes for satellite. Console mods don't cheat anyone out of possible income to cover costs. I do agree with you on cell phones though, but the fact is, that cell phone companies don't make much money off of hardware, recurring revenue is their lifeblood.
Re:So sue me. (Score:3, Insightful)
They sure as hell cheat someone if people use them to play games they didn't buy. I would also note that the price of a thing that is sold is rarely intended simply to "cover costs." Generally speaking - and this goes for most countries in the world and not just the "evil" US - someone is trying to make a profit as well.
I won't try to argue the legality of copying BIOS or making an XBox run Linux (I already tried to do a bit of that above), but the fact that people are able to mod their XBox and then play stolen games is a significant point against mod chips. The fact that people can ALREADY purchase computers to run Linux and write software makes this use even less compelling.
Re:So sue me. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not - that's what people are missing. Open up your XBox and do whatever you want with it. Create a business that sells circumvention devices and it's a whole other story.
Re:Xbox-Linux project (Score:2, Interesting)
If an XBox were a car (Score:5, Insightful)
Dangit, if I buy the hardware and want to modify it, I payed for it--it's mine--why shouldn't I be able to? Void the warranty, yes. But don't tell me I'm doing something legally wrong.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, it does sound like a Village People song-I agree with you there.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:5, Interesting)
The diffrence between ISO 9141/SAE J1962 and RS-232 is that ISO/SAE protocols use +12V and 0V instead of +10V and -10V (if you know how RS-232 works this will make sense).
I'm hacking my car (literally), to find out what extent these things have control of it. It's neat, once you figure out how to build a ISO 9141 to SAE J1962 adapter (I've got all the specifications now..).
Note that if you use ISO/SAE papers to do this crap, you then can't talk about it due to the licensing agreement. I don't use ISO/SAE materials, so fuckem. Someday I'll have all the stuff documented publicly.
So, no, an X-box is not a car. If Honda/Acura tries to tell me I can't do this, I will nicely tell them to fuck off. They aren't protecting media with their car. They aren't copy controlling anything. etc.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:2, Interesting)
The article clearly states that they were selling XBox with mod chips pre-installed. Though you may argue that you have the right to change parts on an electronic machine, it could still be legally questionable if:
- They have a distribution agreement with Microsoft that prevents them from altering the XBox
- These changes include installing software ( even if it is in ROM, EPROM, FLASH, etc ) that is illegal under DMCA
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:5, Funny)
What if it's a new car, and you modify it so that it fails to comply with emission regulations? Modding a car is not the best example - a modded car can be illegal to drive.. or worse, kill people. A modded x-box isn't likely to have such an extreme effect (unless, maybe, you play for 86 hours straight..?)
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless and until congress sells what little digital future we have left down the river and mandates DRM, Palladium, or some similarly destructive requirement into our technology via a bill like those proposed by Senator "Disney" Hollings, none of the limits you imply are relevant. Unlike a modified car, which law restricts from being used on public roads, there are no such restrictions for a modified x-box.
If you've paid for the games legally, you are legally entitled to play them (or a backup copy you've made) on any x-box, modified or not. Ditton for running GNU/Linux or some other, hitherto unknown, operating system. Ditto for connecting to the internet, whether to browse the web or play UT3 (under GNU/Linux or, if a client exists, Microsoft's crippled offering). Ditto for anything else.
In other words, the x-box is perfectly legal to modify and use any way you like (short of violating criminal laws with respect to fraud, cracking into other people's systems, and the like). Microsoft is out of line, and in need of a serious bitch-slap, for what they've done and what they are trying to do.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:2, Interesting)
You aren't. Once you buy that XBox, you can do whatever you want with it. There's a long standing rumor that you can't mod your consoles -- but that's just a rumour, put there to discourage people from doing it.
That's why Microsoft doesn't go after modders themselves -- they litereally wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Instead they go after the modchip makers and sellers. It's a little easier that way.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:2)
And modding an xbox isn't about making it easier to commit crimes with it.
Re:If an XBox were a car (Score:2, Informative)
profit made on game titles (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you only buy the hardware (because with a mod-chip it makes a cheap general purpose computer) then the finances get all screwed.
Re:profit made on game titles (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to back your argument up a bit. The basis of profit for sony, nintendo, and MS are, indeed, selling high profit margin games. But MS is the only one currently losing money on a console.... and they are losing money hand-over-fist.
Close.... 4 consoles (Score:4, Interesting)
The Gamecube was admitted to be sold at a loss (admitted by Nintendo at launch) but it was small. Estimates were that it was sold at a $5-$15 loss, compared to the $200 or so on the Xbox. And that was only at launch, they got costs down real quick and were profitable before and after the price cut.
The "all consoles" are sold at a loss is a strange rumor. They have always been sold "at cost," retailers make ZERO markup on the consoles, or at least that was the case in the 80s. We used to get our games through a wholesaler through a family friend in retail (wholesale to mom-and-pop stores, not Toys R Us level stores), we'd save about $8 a game, but couldn't get ANY savings on consoles. I think we saved sales tax, but I don't remember if we had to pay it through their store.
Alex
Re:profit made on game titles (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like MS is still stuck in the "New Economy".. If you don't want to lose money, don't sell something for less than it costs you. Plain and simple math.
Re:profit made on game titles (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as you only buy the hardware then the finances get all screwed.
Yes, but that's not your problem, is it? That's a "feature" of their business model. If people decide to use their property in some other way, or just decide to buy no games, then it may cost MS money - but that doesn't make it illegal! You never went into any agreement with them to let them keep making profit off you, you just bought some box cheaply.
On the other hand, these mod chips apparently contain a modified version of the Xbox's RAM, and therefore they're quite simply illegal, if they really do.
Re:profit made on game titles (Score:3)
"Legit"? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Legit"? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS doesn't have to approve of changes. You see, once you sell something, it's no longer yours, you can't tell someone how to use it (with the small exceptions of land covenants).
As far as FCC certiification goes, as long as you aren't reselling the device, it's meaningless. FCC certification only is required to sell hardware, not to use it.
Make Lik Sang Open Source! (Score:5, Funny)
Only when we realize the vastness of the experience of the Open Source developer community can we reach the heights that the Dreamcast and Jaguar reached in the gaming world.
Re:Make Lik Sang Open Source! (Score:3, Funny)
Uhm. In all seriousness... was that a joke?
(Think "where are they now")
Re:Make Lik Sang Open Source! (Score:2)
Your argument only works if the proprietors of Lik-Sang did what they did to be altruistic. But, since they were doing it to make a profit it would've been completely illogical for them to give their business away for free.
I could be becuase... (Score:2, Informative)
Well, if they weren't selling the devices at a loss I'm sure that just "selling more devices" would be acceptable. They have ot make their money back somewhere (software & accessories).
Er, no (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't want to sell devices, they want to sell games...
I'm still undecided as to whether the Xbox is a honeypot for MS to see how easy people find it to crack the hardware, in preperation for whatever is going to replace it. I'd like to think it isn't, but then for some reason XP refuses to return any results if I search my entire system for "*.java" in XP, and I'm a Java Developer...
DRM Practice run (Score:4, Interesting)
They can hone their skills on known hardware.
Thus being cracked and modded is a successful operation for them. They even get practice on how to oil the wheels of litigation.
All this with not much reputation to lose, after all it's *only* a games console.
Once they've got it sorted out with their own hardware design they will be in a position to know how to issue "DRM Compiant" certificates for motherboards, for a fee. Then we'll be paying an MS tax on hardware without anyone arguing about pesky OS's. Their patent on DRM OS's may mean that there'll be another license fee to pay should *your* OS want to use the DRM facilities built into *your* motherboard.
Re:DRM Practice run (Score:3, Interesting)
The Xbox is a honeypot to see how easy it is to tap some of the 9-billion-USD/year-and-rising video game market. Carving off a decent chunk of the console market (don't forget they've already got a PC games division) would represent a substantial slice of their yearly gross. Seems like a good enough reason on it's own.
I'm firmly of the opinion that the DRM features are present in the XBox as a practice run.
Maybe, but this is a bit of a stretch. The Palladium group is totally separate from the X-Box group. Different buildings, different campus. Maybe they've met each other.
MS isn't substantially in the PC-hardware business. Don't confuse their Palladium plans with the TCPA hardware plans. We like to make up fantastic M$ conspiracy plans (they've certainly replaced NSA as the
The point is, as I struggle to get back on topic, that Palladium could be a very good thing for the Windows world. The ability to efficiently separate software privilege according to least-privilege principle and the status of trusted, signed code -- what's not to like? The thing that all of us are worried about is whether the power to determine what code to run will lie with the end-user or with some external authority.
My guess is both. Right now, XP ships with a very decent home firewall. However, group policy on a domain can overrule Administrator's decision to turn on the firewall, so that in a corporate environment, you don't break things by having your firewall on in an ostensibly trustworthy environment. It's not a big stretch to see how, on an unconnected computer (home user), full control of Palladium's features lies with Administrator, and on a business domain, full control lies with the Domain Administrator.
You could run any app you wanted, but as soon as you connected to a Domain, you'd have to check with the Domain's policy server to verify whether these programs are also allowed to run when connected to the domain. Kazaa would probably be shut down, but Word would stay open. Mozilla would never miss a beat, but bo2k would disconnect.
Compare this to TCPA, where control cannot *possibly* be with the end user, because the end user does not even control the hardware. TCPA hardware might have a market with business, but I can't imagine many people jumping on board to buy crippled hardware, and as long as people are voting with their wallets, somebody will be selling non-crippled hardware.
And don't forget that these days most folks can do everything they need to on free software on a free OS. I don't think we're going to lose converts to the DRM craze, so even in a TCPA-dominated world, you'll only need the platform to run specialized software like Photoshop, 3dsmax, etc., where companies can actually make money selling exclusively TCPA-aware versions. But then look at the progress of the gimp, and blender...
bleagh, this is too long to discuss in a post. =) Summary: TCPA bad, Palladium good, maybe. But then again, I like NSA's SELinux, too... ; )
"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that if under current law those companies are the rightsholders, it is up to them to decide whether or not to undertake some alternate distribution method. Just because under some economic analysis such grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable.
If you honestly a) hate RIAA and b) think that Napster et al increased music sales, then you would NOT have used napster, right?
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Microsoft could sell more boxen.." (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on there cowboy. Modding your X-box can't be illegal because you own it. It is not, by anybody's definition licensed. I bought it. It is not software. It may contain software, which is presumably licensed, but that license cannot disseize me of property rights. The Mod itself could be illegal, that is, and illegal copying of copyrighted software, and that seems to be what is happening here. If I buy a mod chip from someone, they are responsible for the legality of what they are selling, not me, so long as there is a quid pro quo. Which seems to be where Lik Sang screwed up.
grey activities may help them sell more units does not make those activities any more legal or morally acceptable
Your statement here makes the assumption that we all believe that sellers have the intrinsic right to dictate to buyers what they can and cannot do with the product which they have bought. This is so utterly ludicrous that I have to believe that you are astroturfing for the MPAA. I suggest you review the legal concept of quid pro quo. I'll give you a hint, its latin, and it means "this for that". And when you sell something You Give Up Ownership This is the fundamental principle of Capitalism. Get used to it.
-- Rich
What haven't we been told? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, why are Lik-Sang still collecting e-mail addresses for people who want to be told when they are back online? Why not just shut down the domain and save on hosting bills? I know most of you are going to say that it's a Microsoft ploy to get a list of addresses of mod chippers, but that's a little farfetched even by MS standards.
The much more likely scenario is that MS doesn't want Lik-Sang to close down altogether (betcha they sell a whole pile more PS2 chips than they do X-Box ones), they just want them to stop selling X-Box mod chips...in which case, the site will be back up in a few weeks, when all the legal problems are sorted and Lik-Sang have "smelt the glove" of Microsoft
Re:What haven't we been told? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two weeks later a Sik-Lang site is up and doing the exact same thing.
It'll be like whack-a-mole
Freedom and Disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
If as a condition of sale you agree to certain things, then you must conform to them, you are free to buy or not buy. But I should clearly and explicitly tell you BEFORE you purchase the product.
People should be free to have almost any contract they wish, I don't think the government should restrict my freedom by saying I can't enter into a fair and equitable agreement.
Undisclosed onerous conditions should not be be valid.
not exactly (Score:2, Informative)
But MS does not make a real profit on the devices, only on the software. The XBoxes are dead cheap to make sure people by them, instead of other gaming consoles. So if you have a mod chip that allows the xbox to run other software, even if it's not illegal, then you're still a pain in the ass for microsoft because people use and (possibly) buy less of their software.
Boo Hoo (Score:2)
Next time anyone does this, make the *source* available so we can do it ourselves, and not force us to pay a red cent to make it work.
*sniff sinff* Microsoft busted us for being a monopoly!
Boo Hoo. Post the source, post the how to's before thinking about selling the unit.
Isn't the majority of this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I buy an Xbox (not that I would), it is therefore mine. I chip it, which presumably voids the warranty, but this is still legal because I own it.
If I use it to play pirated games then I am breaking the law because the vendor has copyright on the game, not because I have done anything illegal with the console.
If I purchased the console then it is up to me to decide what software I run on it. The OEM has no right to tell me what is and is not authorised software.
If I use it to play games from other regions then this should be fine, because the vendor of the game is applying a restraint on trade.
This article seems, like many others, to be offering a report that has little to do with logic or the law but has everything to do with partiality.
Copyright BIOS code (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copyright BIOS code (Score:4, Informative)
My thoughts, FWTW (Score:5, Informative)
I haven't seen the packaging, but EULAs aren't that common on hardware purchased. In fact, the traditional business model is that you own the hardware you have purchased, although you do not own the rights to the design. I think MS would object if you were modding boxes and reselling them, however. (We can debate whether they have a legitimate gripe all day....)
2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?)
I doubt it. First, this isn't about profit, it's about ownership of the design. Microsoft's beef with Lik is that they are infringing on MS proprietary assets. (There's a lot more going on, of course, being that they're MS.) Even a non-profit group is not allowed to ignore intellectual property laws, so there's no protection inherent in being non-profit.
Second, remember that "non-profit" doesn't necessarily mean "makes no money." Many non-profit companies thrive & make a ton of bucks (Underwriters Labs, for ex), but they do not distribute dividends to shareholders. "Profit" is reinvested in the company. (Business gurus, correct any inaccuracies here.) As such, NP companies aren't that much different. They're still making money and paying salaries.
3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such?
I'm not prepared to address this one right now. (I'm at work, and I could easily spend a day trying to analyze that situation.)
Short version is that MS wants to prevent distribution of a chip they believe infringes on their intellectual property. They aren't really upset with the people making the mods...yet....
License & Copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
1. No, you don't sign an agreement when you buy an XBox. Even if such an agreement was included, it is questionable if this holds any legal value.
2. Profit is not truly an issue in this conflict.
3. There are a few reasons why a MOD chip (and/or its sale) can be illegal:
- The MOD chip contains copyrighted code from the original.
- The MOD chip qualifies as a circumvention device under the DMCA or similar non-US law.
These are usually the reasons a MOD chip is pulled off the market by a court order.
Re:License & Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
I bought an XBOX, and since the agreement wasn't on the outside of the box, Buying it is not an implicit agreement of any kind.
It's not like DirecTV where, when you buy the equipment, they open it right there, take down your information, the box serial number, and make you sign an agreement about establishing service...
Also, Several of the chips that Lik-Sang sold didn't include any BIOS software... So it literally was just a collection of parts, and a method of connecting those 'parts' to an XBOX... I'd think if they included instructions on how to hook it to your toaster, there's not much basis for a lawsuit.
It goes against their business model... (Score:5, Interesting)
Profit, on the hardware, think not (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I know about these things, the hardware is sold at cost or with a loss, and the manufacturers want to get profit out of the games.
Modding it would not increase their profit, instead, as you are running software where M$ (or Nintendo or Sony) they are not paid for.
On the other hand, Sony does support Linux on their PS/2 and develops for it. I guess that they think (rightfully) that if you buy a PS/2, you will most likely buy games for it too. Having Linux (and network on it) might just be the extra push the customer needs.
Licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you aren't, then the GPL isn't binding either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing" anything when you use GPL'd code. Why is it that the EULA is wrong, but the GPL, BSD license etc are OK? After all, in the Unix community (or the traditional Unix community, at any rate) programmers and users were largely indistinguishable, so using source code is analogous to using a consumer application.
Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.
Re:Licenses (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Licenses (Score:2)
Well, if you aren't, then the GPL isn't binding either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing" anything when you use GPL'd code.
"
Correct. Ten points to the smart one at the back. Question 2. Why doesn't this matter?
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Insightful)
>either, since you aren't intrinsically "signing"
>anything when you use GPL'd code.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, there is nothing preventing you from *using* GPL code without agreeing to the GPL.
The license is for *distribution* not use. As you have no right to distribute copyrighted works otherwise, you are bound to seek licensing before doing so, in which case the authors provide the GPL.
Matt
There's a big difference between the GPL vs others (Score:2, Informative)
Most other EULAs demand that you agree to them so that you have the rights that would normally be granted by copyright. This is in contradiction to the doctrine of first sale, and a few other legal norms. The GPL is not. If ANY EULA is binding it would be the GPL. This issue has really been discussed to death on slashdot already, just search around and you'll understand eventually.
Re:Licenses (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL gives you additional rights: the right to copy and make derivative works, provided your derivatives have the same license. In *no way* does the GPL take any rights away from you. You would not otherwise be able to redistribute a copyrighted work.
Under normal copyright, you have every right to take source code that you download and modify for your personal use. The GPL only kicks in if you try and redistribute.
Click-through EULAs that say you can NOT modify for personal use, or limit what you can use a product for, or in any other manner take away your rights are entirely different from a license like the GPL which extends your rights.
Under the First Sale Doctrine, MS can't sell you an XBox and tell you what you can do with it.
Re:Licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
The ms EULA is far different. MS by law can only dictate whether or not " you can use" or " copy the product". All this garbage about installing drm software without your consent hidden in some EULA in a service pack or agreeing not to benchmark or say anything bad about ms on a website is not supported in copyright law. The terms are rediculous. Yes a legal agreement, is binding if you actually sign a legal contract with a notory present
Not by clicking a button or reading a notice saying you must agree to the EULA inside this cd before opening it. That is true bs and I doubt will hold up in court. Bill Gates mentioned the EULA in an interview in 1980 as an agreement similiar to petro-chemical plants allowing Exxon to use their patents for oil refineries. I do not buy this. No singed contract, no legitimacy. And signing permission to use something thats patented is different then some vague non signed agreement about doing something that does not cover "right to use" or "right to copy".
I would seriously not be supprised if ms in the future puts a sticker on the xbox stating "By opening the box, you agree to the terms of the EULA inside". If ms did this, it would still not apply but I wonder if it could be argued on behalf of Microsoft that the hardware is copyrighted?
What can and can not be a copyrighted work?
If its argued that hardware is copyrighted, then even using it without their permission is agaisn't copyright laws. I know this sounds crazy but I fear this is where the IP world is heading. They want patent like powers of copyrighted works, and to top it off they still want to own them after they are purchased by a consumer! Before you know it, auto repair shops could be sued by car manufactors for violating copyright laws by changing oil and reparing their vehicles.
Anyway ms has no case unless they dare to bring up the issue of the hardware itself being copyrighted which I do not think they will do unless they are desperate.
Money (Score:2)
1) M$ wants to make money from games and selling expensive SDKs.
2) M$ introduces a console called XBox constructed from a PC with some signing stuff in HW.
3) XBox gets modded fairly quickly.
4) XBox can now run Linux.
5) M$ sees a potential threat divided in two parts a. one can copy games, b. one can use the XBox to pull M$'s legg (running Linux on it).
6) M$ sues the hell out off anyone getting to close.
7) M$ ends up with a huge pile of money!
Please excuse me ranting, but I get so tired of their lame attempts to introduce signing. Use a custom CPU with on-chip signing, a motherboard without any standard devices etc. and it will become harder. They could not for a minute have thought that a PC based console would be left unhacked.
As for custom conponents being more expensive - the *big* money can be found in games, not the actual hw. If they were sure to sell games they could just give the thing away!
Why Software/IT industry Got Perverted? (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess this business is just so young, maybe 50 years of serious computer/software business so far, that these failures are just result of immaturity. In my opinion there is nothing so different in this industry of ours and it should just follow the same rules as with everything else - with only minor changes.
Re:Why Software/IT industry Got Perverted? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does MS sell these chips? No. Is Lik Sang cutting into their market? No. Do these chips contain MS proprietary code? Who knows. To me, it contains only sand and metal.
Nobody is using this technology to replace the X-box, only augment it. My opinion is that countries already have laws to deal with piracy, enforce those ones, instead of making new ones.
How? (Score:2)
Why would MS support Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
This statement makes no sense. Why would MS support Linux - their sworn enemy? Why would they make it easy for people to buy their hardware and run Linux on it?
Even if MS didn't care about Linux, just look at the facts. The Xbox is basically a PC. However, it's sold at a huge loss. The sales of games make up for this loss. However, if everyone buys the Xbox at a loss, and then doesn't buy any games, but installs Linux on it, and uses it as a PC, MS loses a shitload of money. Without the Xbox, these same people wanting a PC would have to buy one from Dell, or something, which comes with Windows XP and other MS software, so MS has made money on software, without losing any money on hardware.
The only reason MS entered the game console market is to make money. They need the games in order to make money. Without them, they lose, and the Xbox will be as dead as the Nintendo PowerGlove.
Yes, you _can_ buy an Xbox, and run Linux on it with a modchip, but why would you want to? Why would you want to use MS hardware, which is a stipped down, shitty PC, and run Linux on it, when you can get a mini form-factor (XPC) bare-bones system for under $150, add a processor and drive, and be up and running on a better system without having to look at an MS logo everyday? Sure, I understand the "because I can", argument, and yeah, it's cool to make Linux run on something that wasn't mean to explicitly support it, but really, it's not like it's going to become a true platform.
That having been said, I am in no way supporting MS' extension of US laws to foreign companies. That does in fact suck.
othernews (Score:4, Funny)
Re:othernews (Score:3, Interesting)
After John Lennon made his infamous remark about Jesus Christ, angry fans collected their albums and made a huge pile to be smashed by a steam roller. The PR fiasco that caused was gigantic.
Suppose enough rabid people were willing to spend $200 on an Xbox (or other MS products), lose some money for MS, and stage a peaceful protest in which a steamroller crushes brand new Microsoft merchandise. What would it take to make this a big event? 100 people with 100 products in an urban center could probably draw a crowd and a news team. Someone can get in front of the camera and explain that until Microsoft is sentenced for attacking the American economy (big issue), until Microsoft cancels its strategy of restricting home users' rights (big issue), they should be considered a(n) (PR buzzword here - "enemy combatant"? "traitor"? "evil influence"?) in America and the public must take action.
Hell, at the very least, it would be fun. At best it might force the issue to the forefront and raise awareness among the regular citizen about what the future holds.
Microsoft aren't trying to make money... Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
At the moment, Microsoft aren't trying to make money (and they're clearly not doing so anyway). Rather they're trying to wrest control of the market from Sony (and, to a lesser extent, Nitendo and other console-makers). Basically they're trying the gain a monopoly in the market (ala PCs).
Once they have this control, _then_ they can begin to make money. They're sitting on enough cash to run as a loss-leader if they want, lose money at the outset, and then increase prices once people are tied in.
The development of alternative systems for the XBox may increase the purchase of the consoles short-term, but long-term it opens up the device to others, destroying the whole idea of monopolizing (i.e. they can't increase the price of games development on the system, of all of the software houses can just roll out a version of the game for Mandrake on the XBox to exactly the same end-users).
I think Microsoft will be no more keen to encourage 3rd party O/S development on the XBox than they are to encourage it in the PC market (and they're in a much better position to control it in the case of the XBox, as they control the hardware directly).
Not sure about a EULA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not particularly, no. Of course MS is under no obligation to support you, or your box if it breaks. Also don't necessarilly expect it to work with the Live service. In other words, you're free to break it, just don't dump on MS when it breaks or you can't use it with some new game, or their online service, they are well within their rights to exclude you if they are able.
2) Could a non-profit org setup an effort to have mod chips produced and "distributed" at the cost of production w/o legal repurcussions? (i.e. would not making a profit on XBox's hardware mods protect you from their wrath?)
Ahh, now here's where you get to the quasi legality. It's the production for profit of mod-chips that has dubious legal value. Ever wonder why you can't just walk into a store and buy a cable descrambler? You might be able to avoid them - but you have to show up in court, and pay the legal fees when they sue you.
3) I understand the whole DRM aspect of mod'ing for playing copied games, BUT, what about legit gray-hacks like the Mandrake Linux XBox project and such?
Microsoft is concerned about a larger picture. Of having the X-Box be an end unit in a network of units. They want to make sure that the network is somewhat secure. By supporting something like Linux on the X-Box, they help to compromise their plans.
Microsoft's EULA claims you sign this right away (Score:5, Interesting)
Plain vanilla copyright allows you to make modifications to software/hardware you've purchased. For example, you can purchase Windows NT Workstation and hex edit the bits that cripple Workstation so that it acts more like Server. You may not however redistribute it.
Microsoft hates the idea because they want to sell Server, which is just a recompile (with a few other tools) for much much more. They claim that you are bound to the End User License Agreement when you open the shrink-wrap package you forfeit this and many other rights. Of course, they don't get your signature, and most people never have any idea of what this license says, and some would say it's plain illegal to force customers to waive so many rights just to use software, so it's kind of up in the air.
I imagine this same EULA makes mod chips illegal. EULAs have not been sufficiently validated in court (cases seem to go both ways for a number of reasons), so you're rolling the dice by challenging it.
However, IANAL.
Greetz DJB, JS
Why legal questions on slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Much, much more often, I see endless "IANAL, but...". So, I have my own ask slashdot. What is the damn point of asking legal questions here? This is news for nerds, not news for barristers.
Linux actually helps here..... (Score:2, Redundant)
The mod-chip becomes a "reverse-engineering" product, with verifyable "non-infringing" use.
I.e. since running Linux on an Xbox is perfectly legal, and you need a mod-chip to make it happen, the mod-chip manufacturer gets some legal protection, since it is not only used for "illegal" purposes.
P.S. IANAL, please Fla^H^H^HCorrect me if I'm wrong.
And the reverse frequently applies too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dammit - our best reference is shut down ... (Score:2, Informative)
They were always one of our best refernces. Dammit.
Mandrake Linux XBox Project (Score:2, Interesting)
No offense to anyone, but why the hell would anyone want to make the XBox run Linux? Just because you can? It doesn't help, it doesn't make it faster, all I can see that it does do is void your warranty for the sake of being l337.
I think MS is right in doing so (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I think MS is right in doing so (Score:3, Interesting)
Historically, someone invents something and people benefit from it. What you suggest is that everyone should invent everything that they use instead of just buying it from someone with expertise in its making. I don't know how to make cars or refrigerators or televisions either - and yet I have all of those!
It says on the Xbox Box: (Score:3, Informative)
License: Software in and with the Xbox console is licensed to you, not sold. You are licensed to use this software only with your Xbox and you may not reverse engineer it, except as permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
So does the DMCA permit you to reverse engineer it?
Modding the X-Box is playing MS's game (Score:3, Insightful)
But PC software is always pirated. What they have to build is a DRM PC. And this is what they are making. The X-Box is a practice run.
Their goal is a DRM PC. Cheap hardware, but impossible to run pirate software.
The payoffs from a DRM PC are much higher than any game console. And I believe this is what MS is aiming at. Modding the X-Box just pushes this process along faster than it would go otherwise.
Ma Bell owned all the phones-MS owns all the Xbox? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why XBox (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's a challenge. And Linux community is a world of challengers. The challenge may be making some noses to all-mighty M$. But the mainstream is probably following the old true challenge of getting one more piece of hardware and putting it to test. The versality and universality of Linux was made of these "Will Linux run on Sparc, PPC, Palmtop, S/390...? Even Sony's PlayStation couldn't run from this mood. And let's remember that some people referred to XBox + Linux in the way - "Sony PS-2 was first now it's time for XBox". And they probably are not hunting games, like some lamers speak here. Their objective is more the traditional "hack the thing".
2. XBox goes much cheaper than the traditional computer. Some have already noted this... And if you wanna use it as a cheap server, why not?
So these are probably tow vectors that move the crowd. What will happen if M$ cuts the trend. Well it will just loose customers, nothing else. Because if they are not for games then XBox will be nothing for them. And they may loose a large piece of the market. I don't think that Linux hackers can repeat Lego Mindstorms phenomena but there are parallels that force me to remind this story. A few years ago Lego launched is small and cute robot, planning to sell some 10000 units. However, the thing was not so popular among chidren as among hackers (I even have one). At first they didn't like this and tried to charge with all this copyright boolaboo. However when they saw sales jumping over 100000 (10x the expectations), they even started to make publicity to some of these guys.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
So are we renting the X-boxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, following on that idea, when M$ releases the X-box-2 (or whatever clever name their ad guys come up with) comes out, they'll let me trade in for the new model, right? Or if I accidentally, say, bash it with a sledgehammer, would they sue me? It's "their hardware", or so they imply by not letting us mod it.
I dunno, I think they are crossing a lot of lines here that they shouldn't. I feel that once I buy something outright, I should be able to do whatever the heck I want with it. Tell bill gates that he can't remodel his house, or replace parts in his car and see how he feels.
Re:darnit (Score:2, Interesting)
When I first heard of this happening, my first thought was that they arent cracking down because of *what* they are doing, more of because of the methods.
Is the mod chip in fact, a bootleg hacked microsoft bios? Therefore, the claim would not be against anybody modding anything, but in fact a case against a company for distributing microsofts copyrighted code (the bios).
I could be wrong of course - but I bet thats the angle of the lawyers above all others.
Re:darnit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:darnit (Score:3, Interesting)
Their okay with losing 100 bucks per Xbox because they intend to make up the difference in all the content you'll buy. As soon as you buy 3 games, they've started making a profit. However, if you mod the thing and install linux on it, they're still out a 100 bucks and you have yourself a cheap linux box. Since Microsoft's internal motto is "Litigate, don't innovate, it's a lot cheaper".
In other posts I've written about this, but it comes down to the same thing. Until Microsoft can start producing an Xbox that they can make a profit from just selling the box, they've got a major uphill battle, because both Sony and Nintendo's apporach is just that. They make it a point of almost never losing money on the production of a console.
Back in the day... (Score:2)
If they DO start putting systems in locked boxes, which they won't because boxed components account for a large slice of hardware sales. But if they DID, well, I've got a large pair of bolt cutters for just such an occasion. :-)
Re:Someone please cite the XBox licensing agreemen (Score:4, Funny)
So if you can't do X, all you have left is a "box" - what's the point of that?
btw, I thought we haven't given in to the whole "hardware license" thing just yet, and maybe, just maybe, we can still buy something and do whatever with it, without the company telling us what we can and cannot do with something we supposedly own (and owning is something I like to do after I give away money)