Student Arrested for Jailbreaking Game Consoles | Hacker News Reader

Student Arrested for Jailbreaking Game Consoles

wired.com

This is crazy, especially in California, where jails are completely overpopulated (the jail currently holding Hans Reiser is designed for ~1700 people and currently has ~3400).

Agree with ujjwalg - sending someone to jail for that is crazy.

The point of jail is to physically stop someone from hurting other people. As in with fists or knives or guns. It's to stop violence. It is not to redress perceived economic or copyright infringements.

Are they serious?! You're going to take a human being, a fellow countryman (and a technically skilled one!) and actually forcibly confine him to a cage, because he circumvented the copy protection on a video game?!

What kind of crazy society is this, anyway. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

I feel obligated to point out that jail is also used as a deterrent.

Using your rationale, then Bernie Madoff should not be in prison, either.

I agree this person should not go to the prison, but I think your classification is too simple. Madoff hurt people - not physically, but financially. And the harm he caused was more devastating than if he had administered a physical beating.

It makes us happy to see that Bernie Madoff is going to jail but how much good is it really doing?

Hey, it's not as crazy as it sounds... DHS popped him so he was probably using the profits from modding to fund terrorism.

Don't question the government! They know better.

The DMCA is one of the worst laws to come out of Washington ever. I don't think there is another law that so completely proves that Washington is beholden to corporate interests far more than people's interests. Somebody on the linked article calls it a corportocracy, and I don't think that is too far off.

That said, it is illegal, it is not surprising that you're going to get busted.

Both articles on the front page here fail to mention that he was doing this as an advertised commercial service.

Auto mechanics work on cars as an advertised commercial service. It turns out that tinkering with parts should not be a crime.

(Yes, this guy was doing it to pirate video games. But handgun manufacturers build guns solely to murder other human beings, and auto mechanics can install equipment that allows you to exceed the speed limit. Neither of those are crimes, so why should modifying a game console be one?)

It turns out that tinkering with parts should not be a crime.

When did it turn out? It neither 'should' nor 'should not' be a crime, objectively, that I can see.

Neither of those are crimes, so why should modifying a game console be one?

You can't kill or speed without large and noticable external signals, such as a speeding car or a dead/missing person. You can also target shoot and race on private tracks.

You can pirate video games without any significantly noticable events, and there isn't much else you can do with a chipped console.

Video game piracy has more justification for legal blocks earlier in the process.

Homebrew isn't much else?

or linux for that matter?

I purchased several original xbox's and modded them to run linux for a clustering project.

I know folks who have a chipped XBox, primarily to run XBMC (XBox Media Center). This isn't pirated software at all, it's open source. But it's a great way to get media off a home server and play it on your entertainment center. The hacking of the box is only because of MS's locking out 3rd parties.

There are plausible reasons to modify a game console that aren't just pirated games. I haven't followed modchips et al recently, but historically a mod chip was required to use any non-standard software at all (for instance, installing a different operating system like XBMC). I think it's the same today.

"handgun manufacturers build guns solely to murder other human beings"

That's a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Very few people obtain a handgun legally for the purpose of Murdering somebody. (Less than 1% of legally obtained firearms are used in a crime) The primary reason to own one is for personal protection which implies the direct preservation of life. Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest.

Owning a guns doubles your chances of getting killed by one, so it only really augments your perception of safety.

Source please. Also, statistically, do gun owners live in unsafer environments to begin with, hence the perceived need for ownership?

This is a highly controversial article, I admit: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084

Gun ownership is widespread in the US, and lots of people have them in perfectly safe regions. So do they not create a source of danger where there was none? Accidents do happen.

In my country, gun deaths went down considerably after the police started taking them out of circulation. As one police officer put it, bar fights became a lot less deadly in the suburbs.

Thanks for the link. Yes, it is true that accidents happen, I'll give you that. The same can be said for cars, which kill far more people each year than handguns. I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just saying it is a difficult issue.

That gets into a different argument: should people be allowed to do things that don't have a demonstrable health or safety benefit for them? Should unhealthy foods be outlawed? Exercise mandated?

Even if that statistic does exist, I'm sure the relationship isn't causal.

What are you intending to do with your gun, if not to kill someone? Shoot their arm off? ("Your arm's off!" "No it isn't.")

Okay, that's fine...

Not unless you have to. Walk softly, carry a big stick.

If all else fails then yes, I'm sorry, but yes, if somebody breaks into a house and threatens my family I will threaten them with force. The lives of 4 people who are innocent are greater than that of one who willingly put themselves into a criminal position. Do I wish that that wasn't necessary, sure, but that's not the reality of human nature. The threat of force has always been a factor in survival. Even in nature.

Poison caterpillars rarely get eaten, the birds learn to avoid them.

Gee, I don't know, for target practice, hunting, or simply collecting. I'm sure those three reasons make up the vast majority of legal firearm sales.

Handgun manufacturers don't build guns solely to murder, that's a ridiculous claim, and I doubt if you even believe it. I don't know of any car that can't exceed most speed limits anyway, but the mechanic analogy is slightly better. In fact, I don't think console modification should be a crime, but I think the console companies should be able to initiate a civil case.

This is a very, very important detail.

I was talking to a VP of a game company in Europe about 3rd party servers for games like World of Warcraft. He said that they don't really pay attention to them, except for when they run it for a profit. The minute $$ is involved, they have a special phone # at the FBI to call and get the servers raided the next day.

So what. You sell it, you should lose every right to control it.

As soon as you ask somebody to pay for something you lose control over every aspect of it. If that is not your intention you should rent your devices to people.

What really amazes me is that the law enforcement people are so eager to comply with this stuff that they even set up a special hotline for it.

As far as I'm concerned these kids are doing honest work, they're breaking a chain of control that should not even be there.

If that is not your intention you should rent your devices to people.

That's more or less what these companies are doing. If you read the mouseprint, you're effectively buying a licence to use their device on their terms. :P

If I'm not paying a monthly I'm buying it.

If there is a bill of sale I'm buying it.

If there is a rental agreement and I have to return it at the end of the agreement then I'm renting it.

More or less doesn't cut it.

I'm not defending their approach, only pointing it out.

I have a feeling if he made this a centerpiece of the defense case he could have it appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. If you "buy" something, you own it. Similar to the car comment, if you buy a new home, it's not like you get it with a EULA that says you can't modify it, although home owners associations act in a similar manner.

He could also potentially counter-sue with a class-action lawsuit claiming that the video game systems makers committed fraud by way of falsely advertising to people that they were "buying" the game systems, when in fact, they were actually leasing them.

The whole point of the modifications was to allow pirated games to run on the consoles. You can't expect companies to be fine with that.

FTA:

The DMCA says, “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”

Not to be a pedant here, but obviously the protection wasn't every effective.

What is to stop me saying something like:

"THIS POST IS ENCRYPTED WITH ROT26 ENCRYPTION"

then suing the pants off of all of you for circumventing my protection? Yeah, that is a stupid example, but things have gotten WAY out of control here.

Yea, 'effectively' doesn't mean that the 'technological measure' has to do it's job effectively, but that the results of it 'in effect' controls access.

ROT-26 is a poor example. It does nothing to 'control access' to your text. Using ROT-13 would be a better example since it's so stupidly simplistic that a moron could crack it.

What about using the DMCA where search-and-seizure laws aren't working? I seem to remember there being stories awhile back about airport security searching people's computers unlawfully and getting away with it. Is there any way to claim they violated DMCA in doing so?

If pre-existing copyright law is to be considered, then we are entitled to make an archival copy of a work to serve as a backup. What's the point of allowing for an archival copy if that law also doesn't imply that you should be allowed to use said archival copy in the event that the original is destroyed? And if you are entitled to use the archival copy, then you summarily should be entitled to remove whatever restrictions from a device in order to lawfully use that archival copy.

IMO this guy did nothing wrong based on the spirit of the law, but it is rather the DMCA that is in conflict. If you want to charge anyone with a crime, it shouldn't be the guy who removed the restrictions, it should be whoever was actually pirating games using his modifications.

IIRC, being able to make an archival copy is not a law, but is part of a Supreme Court decision (i.e. 'case law'). The DMCA was enacted after the Supreme Court decision, so I would assume that legally it would 'override' it. I'm definitely not a lawyer though so I have no clue if I'm right. Either way, I'm sure there will be a case at some point challenging this discrepancy to the Supreme Court and we'll see what they say at that point.

A law by Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitutionality of laws in the United States via judicial review, which was used for the first time by the court in Marbury v. Madison.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13...

It's probably about time the geeks & nerds of the US figured out a way to pool our resources and get these laws changed. Lobbying works. If we had the money and a legitimate political organization things could change.

Methinks he's got a good case to be made under DMCA exemptions for interoperability. While the programs are not independently created, running a lawfully archived copy of a game you have the right to use is a valid use of mod-chipping, and this interoperability is needed in order to use that lawful copy.

By the way why is the wired author calling this "jailbreaking" - it's modchipping, completely different from "jailbreaking".. in fact, he even used an iPhone as his graphic... o_O The two are completely unrelated.

Must be part of the 'newer' generation that was first introduced to taking back control of their devices through the efforts to unlock the iPhone rather than modchipping PS1/XBox/PS2/GC/etc. If not then he's a moron.

Another fine example of laws existing to protect the greater goo... oh wait.

Why is it that someone can buy drug paraphernalia at a retail store? Isn't it because there are theoretical uses for those products that are legitimate? To convict him, wouldn't they have to prove that there was NO legitimate use for his "services"?

I just don't see how this can possibly go the distance.

EDIT: I should clarify that I mean "legal" paraphernalia, such as rolling paper and the like. Not the kinds that have been explicitly deemed illegal.

I can buy a bong or a bowl at a store across the street from my house. In fact, they are quite fancy and expensive.

He definitely broke a law. But to send him to jail for doing this is just ridiculous. He should be penalized financially for this and thatz it.

IMO, anyone who jailbreaks their own stuff shouldn't be put under the law, but someone doing it for others for money definitely are breaking the laws. But it is not something that taxpayers money should be wasted in sending him to jail and going through the investigation. Fine him and be done with it.

It's legal for me to pay someone to clean my house.

Why should it be illegal for me to pay someone to remove restrictions from a device I own?

Unfortunately, it isn't a question of should it be legal or not. Anybody with any common sense can see that it should not be illegal, but common sense does not rule our country.

The DMCA makes this illegal. Good thing Homeland Security could jump in and save us here.

they are not charging people who got their consoles jailbroken. They charged the guy who was jailbreaking them for money.

Moreover, the analogy you have is completely irrelevant. I was not arguing against the moral issue behind it. I was saying he broke the LAW and thatz it.

He broke a law that should not exist in the first place.

"that's"

And what would be a good financial penalty for physically modifying a hunk of plastic and semiconductor that you bought?

He definitely broke a law. But to send him to jail for doing this is just ridiculous. He should be penalized financially for this and thatz it.

If he broke a law (DMCA), and the law says he goes to jail, then he "should" go to jail.

I think the DMCA is deeply flawed to start with - IMO, what he did "shouldn't" be penalized at all.

We do not own property.

Only our masters may actually own property.

"The "you don't own your computer" paradigm is not merely wrong. It is violently, disastrously wrong, and the consequences of this error are likely to be felt for generations to come, unless steps are taken to prevent it."

"Ethics for Programmers: Primum non Nocere"

http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html

That is really an amazing article, I couldn't agree more.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=741661

Reply on news.ycombinator.com