3 ms·

Man arrested for modifying Xboxes

22 points by kasunh 17y ago

pmorici 17y ago
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.
- mr_eel 17y ago
  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.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    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.
    - mr_eel 17y ago
      Of course I am familiar with it. I'm arguing against it when I say it's not justified.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        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.
  - designtofly 17y ago
    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.
    - daeken 17y ago
      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.
    - mr_eel 17y ago
      "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
staunch 17y ago
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.
- yason 17y ago
  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.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - designtofly 17y ago
    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.
    - 17y ago

22 points by kasunh 17y ago

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.

mr_eel 17y ago
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.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  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.
  - mr_eel 17y ago
    Of course I am familiar with it. I'm arguing against it when I say it's not justified.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      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.
- designtofly 17y ago
  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.
  - daeken 17y ago
    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.
  - mr_eel 17y ago
    "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

staunch 17y ago

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.

yason 17y ago
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.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- designtofly 17y ago
  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.
  - 17y ago