Man arrested for modifying Xboxes | Hacker News Reader

Man arrested for modifying Xboxes

engadget.com

22 pointskasunh18 comments

This title is misleading and inaccurate! A 27 year old is not a "youth" and it wasn't his Xbox. He was modding other people's consoles to make money.

I think the definition of ownership has been lost recently.

I pay other people to "mod" my car with new parts. That's perfectly legal because I OWN the damn pile of steel. The mechanics won't get arrested because the manufacturer has no say about what will go to my car after I BOUGHT it and, therefore, it's MINE.

Now, if I pay a hacker to "mod" my game console, it should be as legal as above. I OWN the damn pile of plastic and silicon. The hacker shouldn't get arrested because the manufacturer shouldn't think they have a say about what will go to my game console after I BOUGHT it as, therefore, it should be MINE.

It's interesting that you brought up the car, so let's use that example. Would you argue that you should have the ability to remove emissions-regulating devices from your car? After all, they add weight, complexity, and reduce power.

We have emissions regulations. We also have the DMCA which prevents anti-circumvention of piracy protection measures (which the modifications in question aim to do). We, as a society, have generally agreed that emissions regulation is important. We have also agreed that software piracy undermines the viability of the computer/electronics industry.

It's not as black-and-white as "it's mine and I should be able to do anything I damn well please." These modifications have an effect on society at large. In the case of the car, your "right" to modify your car does not trump the rights of society to not have to deal with whatever modifications you deem you deserve. Similarly, even game console modifications have externalities and effects on the industry. They damage the online gaming ecosystem. They reduce revenue. The prevent game consoles from patching and regulating online play.

There is a large difference between the rights of society to well-being and the rights of a private company to profit. Emissions-regulating devices are a requirement because removing them will physically harm other people, in a measurable way, over the long-term. Removing the anti-piracy features from your console harms no one real person—that a corporation loses profit is simply a reason for its employees to seek employment in a different company, presumably one that is not relying on such volatile externalities; it is not a reason for laws to be passed.

For an example that is almost equivalent in every way: cheating at casinos is completely legal. You are "harming" a company, and they really don't like it (and they'll show it, too) but it's not illegal. Console companies simply find it a lot harder to kick people out of their "casinos" when the house advantage falters.

Its not always that simple to seek employment in a different company, and the process might not so harmless.

The problem is with the gaming market, and your suggestion for the developers to move to a 'safer' company - simply means leaving the gaming industry.

And I'd say that this has a negative influence on the quality of games, and it does harm customers.

But neither "games" nor "industries" have rights, and, for the most part, neither do "customers" (other than the rights afforded by the fact that they're also persons.) I don't have a right to own a nice car; if some bad decisions crash the auto industry, I might not be able to buy a nice car. That, again, doesn't mean there should be a law. If the gaming industry is built on sand, let it sink until it finds a workable revenue model (MMOG companies seem to be doing well enough.) If people don't like that it's sinking, maybe they'll, y'know, express that with dollars?

Actually it sort of is. If you have your own racetrack, or a big land you can do as you please. If you want to go on the public road there are other things/people to consider. In belgium you have to get your car checked by an approved center every few years (stability, rust, brakes, ligths, ...). There's an option to go for a special check if you've modified your car.

I don't have to point out the reason we have emissions regulations is limit the pollution in our shared environment. Thus I am very directly affected if a large number of people decide to bypass their emissions-regulating devices from their cars.

However, I am only indirectly affected if a large number of people choose to mod their consoles (or jailbreak their ipods or what-have-you), maybe the cost of games increases. Maybe some developers fail. Now, given the choice between owning my hardware and the DMCA, I choose owning the hardware. Even if my beloved Nintendo has to die to make it so (ok not Nintendo, maybe Sony, or Microsoft, preferably Sony).

(Next time segway into a seat-belt analogy, though that has the same fault; we require insurance and seat-belts keep insurance cost manageable. I think commenting on removing your cars governor would work, but then I would just point out that you only break the law there when you are speeding. As should be the case here, when actually pirating.)

[Is my comment rhetorically weaker than derefr's?]

It was my first impression after I've bought iPod Touch: you can't do this, you can't do that... and things I am allowed to do (there is a closed list) normally involve paying. I was totally enraged by the concept itself so I returned the thing.

I have paid, but I don't OWN the stuff, more like LEASE it and pay, pay, pay for every my fart. Considering that the useful output of the device was kinda limited, it was looking perfectly cynical: a device induces electrical impulses in my hypothalamus and debits money from my account. Perfect! Perfect!

The problem is that firmware is software. It is also legally recognized as software and gets the appropriate protections. However, it is functionally hardware in that it determines what is possible and in its often astonishingly low level -- we don't stop to think about how such and such a device contains software to help it do its job.

I saw this some place else the other day and he wasn't just modding his own game console. He was modding for others and charging them for the service ($100 a pop I think).

I don't think it's right that he's been arrested for that, but he isn't exactly the innocent youth this article makes him out to be if these charges are proven true.

He was modifying devices that those people legally own. Implicit in owning a thing is the right to modify it. These anti-modder laws are illogical and IMO indefensible. Essentially for these laws to be passed and upheld, courts need to accept the argument that despite paying for something, you don't really own it.

Protecting someone's business model is not enough to justify abrogating the most basic property rights.

The purpose of the modifications is to run pirated games. I don't see anything illogical or indefensible with these companies (and the government) going after people who modify hardware in order to run pirated software.

This particular modder crossed the line between hacking for fun or knowledge to facilitating a crime. I know the "criminal" aspect might not get a lot of sympathy from the pro-piracy contingent on this site, but it's still a crime. If you don't want people like this to get arrested, then call your congressmen.

Don't forget that the same regulations also prevent you (theoretically) from running homebrew code on your consoles in most cases. I have to note, however, that the Xbox 360 (not sure if that's the "Xbox" they meant in the article or not, but they also mention the Wii) mods really have no purpose other than running backups/pirated content.

"The purpose of the modifications is to run pirated games."

Or any unsigned code, so it's arguable that it could be used for legitimate reasons.

Also, since copyright infringement is already a crime, criminalising acts with _might_ lead to copyright infringement is going too far in my opinion.

"pro-piracy contingent"

You're mischaracterising the objections; it has nothing to do with supporting copyright infringement and everything to do with your rights to do what you want with what you _own_.

As an aside, I don’t _support_ copyright infringement in any way. I like to see content-creators get money when they make something I like.

a. They deserve it b. It's impetus for them to make more things I might like

apparently you aren't familiar with corporatism. that is exactly what is justified. big businesses always hate and try to subvert the free market, competition lowers profit margins.

Of course I am familiar with it. I'm arguing against it when I say it's not justified.

i was being melodramatic, I feel the topic warrants it as I find having my interests conflict with the interests of an entity that can afford to lobby the legislature and keep a team of lawyers on retainer to be chilling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com