Hacker News Reader

Comment by yason | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com