Print

[jha'dhur]

This last post peeked my interest, because there were sereval comments legally and factual inaccurate concerning the legalilty of a mod chip of nearly any configuration, cable, cell phone and xbox.

QUOTE

Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

Link

QUOTE

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

`( has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

`© is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Pretty much self explanatory.

QUOTE

`(3) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

Sounds alot like a modchip, HUH. The coupled felony of installed games only increases the fiancial impact of the crime and the resulting degree of the felony charge(i.e 1st or 2nd degree).


Now, that you have read the letter of the LAW, any suggestions, complaints, differeing interpretations.

[throwingks]

I agree, but has that law been deemed legal? I am not trying to be a pest. I am just saying I haven't heard of any cases where it was challenged and the outcome.

I do not think a mod-chip alone can do any of those things. The BIOS needed to make it happen, is the illegal part. If you have an unflashed modchip installed to your console, it does nothing illegal.

I also think OpenXDK is legal as long as it doesn't try to circumvent copy prevention measures. So we can legally run homebrew eventually. But, not yet.

As of right now, anyone with XBMC is a felon... I think?

This post has been edited by throwingks: May 15 2006, 02:46 AM

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ May 14 2006, 09:40 PM)

I agree, but has that law been deemed legal? I am not trying to be a pest. I am just saying I haven't heard of any cases where it was challenged and the outcome.

I do not think a mod-chip alone can do any of those things. The BIOS needed to make it happen, is the illegal part. If you have an unflashed modchip installed to your console, it does nothing illegal.

I also think OpenXDK is legal as long as it doesn't try to circumvent copy prevention measures. So we can legally run homebrew eventually. But, not yet.

As of right now, anyone with XBMC is a felon... I think?

DMCA has been signed by both houses and is on the books.

QUOTE(throwingks @ May 14 2006, 09:40 PM)

I do not think a mod-chip alone can do any of those things. The BIOS needed to make it happen, is the illegal part. If you have an unflashed modchip installed to your console, it does nothing illegal.

Thats what the modchip sellers and those that fianancially benifit from this site WISH and perpetuate.

QUOTE

to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

This is a felony, and describes a modchip to the T, the software is an additional count of copyright.

I may be mistaken but isnt XDK copyrighted intellectual property, which is illegal to modify much like modding winodows (i.e end user agreement)

I am studying law and what facinates me is the perception/intepretation of law, rather popular or unpopular.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ May 14 2006, 09:59 PM)

DMCA has been signed by both houses and is on the books.

I didn't know that. It can still be found unconstitutional though, can it not? Roe vs. Wade? I am no legal buff, I am just making uneducated assumptions.

QUOTE

Thats what the modchip sellers and those that fianancially benifit from this site WISH and perpetuate. This is a felony, and describes a modchip to the T, the software is an additional count of copyright.

QUOTE

to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

That isn't what the actual hardware does. That is what the software within the modchip tells the hardware to do.

QUOTE

I may be mistaken but isnt XDK copyrighted intellectual property, which is illegal to modify much like modding winodows (i.e end user agreement)

XDK is. That is why XBMC is illegal. OpenXDK is all written with no M$ code at all.
http://www.openxdk.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openxdk
I know another crappy wiki link.

QUOTE

I am studying law and what facinates me is the perception/intepretation of law, rather popular or unpopular.

It is interesting.

[CattyKid]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ May 14 2006, 07:59 PM)

I may be mistaken but isnt XDK copyrighted intellectual property, which is illegal to modify much like modding winodows (i.e end user agreement)

Yuo don't modify the XDK, the XDK allows you to compile and assemble games.  It's illegal because it is almost ALWAYS obtained illegally.

QUOTE

As of right now, anyone with XBMC is a felon... I think?

Yes, because this was compiled with the XDK.  Since anything that is compiled with the XDK contains part of the XDK code, which is owned and copyrighted by MS, you break the law by having//using XBMC or any other XDK produced Xbox apps (pretty much all of them except Linux and OpenDash, I think).

I hate copyright laws like that.  I OWN the hardware, but I don't own rights to the software on it, so I can't legally modify it (I'm speaking of the bios in particular)?  That's just garbage.  I can see how redistributing a bios can be illegal (seems legal to me if I OWN an Xbox with a bios), but I don't think it should be to Xbox owners.

[lordvader129]

its interestign to note the DMCA differentiates creating, distributing, possessing and using a device to bypass copy protection

from the segments you posted its not illegal to have or even use such a device, simply illegal to create or distribute it (ive never had the patience to read throught he entire text of the DMCA, so there might be another section covering possession and use of copy protection bypass tools)

of course modchips get past this because of the linux applications

interesting note: "legal" apps such as craxtion patch the xbe to remove media checks, how does this action stack up to "circumvention of copy protection"

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 15 2006, 06:52 PM)

of course modchips get past this because of the linux applications

QUOTE

has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected

That would be a modchip

[throwingks]

I think what vader is trying to say is that the main purpose of the chip and BIOS is not to do that. The main purpose is to run Linux.
A modchip with the Cromwell BIOS is 100% legal as it does not circumvent any protective measure enabling you to access a protected work. I.E. - Games. It also has a commercial purpose of letting you turn your 99% PC into a 100% Linux PC.
A modchip with any other BIOS allows you to play illegally obtained games, thus circumventing protective measures.

There is also a different debate of legal backups.  By law we allowed to make a backup of a game we legally purchased. How do we play it? With a mod-chip. That is what I mean, when I say held up in court. What is the accepted interpretation or this example. Legal or not?

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

That would be a modchip

essentially a modchip is no different than a dvd burner, but itself a modchip is incapable of violating any copyrights or bypassing any copy protection, same as a dvd burner

but when coupled other software (or a bios) it does allow this

best buy will sell you a dvd burner, this is perfectly legal, they do not however sell you a copy of a dvd decrypter

modchip sellers sell you a modchip with a linux bios, they dont give you the hacked bios to play backups (yes, i know, some chips do come flashed with a hacked bios, but i never said those were legal)

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 15 2006, 10:00 PM)

essentially a modchip is no different than a dvd burner, but itself a modchip is incapable of violating any copyrights or bypassing any copy protection, same as a dvd burner

but when coupled other software (or a bios) it does allow this

best buy will sell you a dvd burner, this is perfectly legal, they do not however sell you a copy of a dvd decrypter

modchip sellers sell you a modchip with a linux bios, they dont give you the hacked bios to play backups (yes, i know, some chips do come flashed with a hacked bios, but i never said those were legal)

You are comparing apples and oranges, DVD burner does have "legal" uses and not a

QUOTE

"limited commercially significant purpose"

DMCA verbage is pretty precise, and given the fact that individuals have been charged and prosecuted for various violations coveraged under its provisions the point is mute.

Its not like someones going to kick down your door to see if you have a mod, but I dont see the operation of bogus modshops or raiding existing modshops to secure customer records for legal prosecution far fetched.

In fact if this were RIAA or MPAA instead of MS the hammer would have probably already been dropped


 

[throwingks]

It has as much commercial purpose as a VCR.

Modchip:
You can play homebrew games (made w/ OpenXDK) and run linux legally. You can also do illegal things.

VCR:
You can watch homemade movies legally. You can also watch and make illegally copied movies.

So does a VCR violate DCMA also?

[damam]

"limited commercially significant purpose"  <-- how exactly are you intepretting that.  I am not sure I understand.  How does this nullify the linux arguement?  

Modchips do have legal purposes as well.  From what i undestand you are not argueing against that.  You are argueing that the legal purpose is commercially limited.  I fail to see how linux is commercially limited.  Just because nobody has taken advantage of the market, does not mean it does not exist.

[lordvader129]

your missing my point, a modchip sold with a linux bios has only 1 commercial purpose, to run linux, with the linux bios it is incapable of running or creating backups, or even runing legal homebrew (except linux apps) all of this is legal, what people do with them AFTER they are purchased (flashing hacked bios) is out of the hands of the modchip maker and seller, and AFAIK no one has been prosecuted under the DMCA for being in POSSESSION of a modchip with hacked bios, or even illegal backups, people have been prosecuted for SELLING these these things

QUOTE

DMCA verbage is pretty precise

"limited commercially significant purpose" is about as imprecise as you can get