Post by: Xbox-Scene on October 05, 2006, 04:50:00 PM
| From gamasutra.com: Quote
However, what other sites fail to mention is that Divineo is not based or operating in the US, so this judgement doesn't really have much to do with their business. Kinda weird to see a Japanese company sue a French/Canadian company using the US court ... Read More: gamasutra.com, next-gen.biz, biz.gamedaily.com, arstechnica.com |
Post by: yaazz on October 05, 2006, 03:32:00 PM
Post by: XanTium on October 05, 2006, 03:35:00 PM
QUOTE(yaazz @ Oct 5 2006, 11:39 PM) 
i dont understand, if they arent based in USA then what was the point of the case in the first place, they cant make them pay
scare US stores?
PR?
Post by: throwingks on October 05, 2006, 04:13:00 PM
This post has been edited by throwingks: Oct 5 2006, 11:13 PM
Post by: Alex548 on October 05, 2006, 03:42:00 PM
Post by: 47_M450N_47 on October 05, 2006, 03:53:00 PM
Post by: Thraxen on October 05, 2006, 04:48:00 PM
Post by: DV8ORMODS on October 05, 2006, 04:15:00 PM
Post by: liqwidsky on October 05, 2006, 04:57:00 PM
Post by: DV8ORMODS on October 05, 2006, 05:06:00 PM
sorry for the dmca fuck all who says you cannot upgrade your car or computer or house this is piracy at its best trying tomake money on someone elses profit
This post has been edited by DV8ORMODS: Oct 6 2006, 12:06 AM
Post by: DMAddict on October 05, 2006, 04:39:00 PM
Post by: HSDEMONZ on October 05, 2006, 05:32:00 PM
divineo isn't going anywhere.
More drivel from the US court system. All bark.. no byte.
Post by: d-x-j on October 05, 2006, 06:24:00 PM
Post by: urmydizire on October 05, 2006, 06:33:00 PM
grand theft auto its a very sinful game i mean disgustingly sinful but hey theres a God who can do anything he can save us from the most pleasurable thing and give us satisfaction ahh
I love right judgments if you dont have that to offer you cant be my friend and if you arent willing to learn then forget about living
This post has been edited by urmydizire: Oct 6 2006, 01:42 AM
Post by: 89c4l98 on October 05, 2006, 06:12:00 PM
Post by: 47_M450N_47 on October 05, 2006, 06:18:00 PM
That was confusing... Anyway, I agree 100% with d-j-x! I've always told that to my parents and others who don't like copying stuff. We have our rights to backup our software! There is NO REASON that we should have to buy the same game two times because it got scratched, stepped on, ate by a dog, whatever. We are entitled to backup our software! All my Xbox 1 games were taken out of their case 1 time, then locked safely away in their cases. Playing backups saves money and keeps you from having to worry about losing your investment.Another note...
@ the government of the USA:
GET OUT OF EVERYONE'S BUSINESS!!! F OFF!!! IF THE CANADIANS WANT TO SELL MODCHIPS, FREAKING LET THEM!!!!!
</rant>
Post by: razorrifh on October 05, 2006, 06:26:00 PM
glad the 360 doesnt need a chip
Post by: i800phyco on October 05, 2006, 06:45:00 PM
QUOTE
this is fucking bs its not there fault there console wa that easy to hack fuck them its okto put theredisc in a pc and copy it no problem ps2 hgas always been successful for one reason backupsif there were non backups there wouldbe no business
I would think the ps2 has done well do to a fair amount of good games and the people that buy them.
Backups dont mean shit to most ps2 owners as they have stock consoles. Lets face it, alot (not all, but alot) of the people who buy from divineo do so to save money on games by renting/loaning the game and just making a copy. This is basic math buy $100 worth of shit and bam you dont have to buy $50 games anymore.
I'm not saying the us is right on this but someone had to play devils avocate.
Post by: Altima NEO on October 05, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
Post by: snart on October 05, 2006, 06:49:00 PM
QUOTE(Altima NEO @ Oct 6 2006, 12:54 AM)
So Im kind of lost. Why are they trying to get divineo to shell out cash? For selling modchips or for selling HD Loader? Last I checked, (legal) mod chips didnt contain any copyrighted code like the old PS2 chips did. Or ar those illegal now too?
As part of the DMCA, any device (hardware or software) that attempts to bypass a copy protection scheme that is put in place by the software copyright owner is illegal.
Post by: d-x-j on October 05, 2006, 07:07:00 PM
The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by the United Kingdom's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgement", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), that fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. This means that if the defendant's actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's rights (for example, because the plaintiff's work was not copyrighted, or the defendant's work did not borrow from it sufficiently), fair use does not even arise as an issue. However, it also means that, once the plaintiff has proven (or the defendant concedes) that the defendant has committed an infringing act, the defendant then bears the burden of proving in court that his copying should nonetheless be excused as a fair use of the plaintiff's work.
Because of the defendant's burden of proof, some copyright owners frequently make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in his defense. This type of frivolous lawsuit is part of a much larger problem in First Amendment law; see Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 01:53 AM)
Unfortunately, that's not true. You're only reading part of the DMCA.
1. You're allowed to make a single backup of software.
2. You are not allowed to bypass any copy protection on hardware or software.
Add the two together, and you can clearly see that you can make a backup of your Adobe software (because it does not have copy protection), but not of your PS2 or Xbox games (because it has copy protection).
the DCMA does not distinguish between the two. it gives many variables as to what is and is not legal under fair use but does not separate sofware that has/ does not have anti piracy in it. it seems that this may be a hole in the laws. ive been reading through it and i cant find any separation between protected and unprotected software. unless im overlooking something, this means M$ and any other company that publishes software does not have the right to prevent backups from being made.
Post by: snart on October 05, 2006, 07:19:00 PM
QUOTE(d-x-j @ Oct 6 2006, 01:06 AM)
Fair use under United States law
The legal concept of "copyright" was first ratified by the United Kingdom's Statute of Anne of 1709. As room was not made for the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content within this newly formulated statutory right, the courts gradually created a doctrine of "fair abridgement", which later became "fair use", that recognized the utility of such actions. The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), that fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. This means that if the defendant's actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's rights (for example, because the plaintiff's work was not copyrighted, or the defendant's work did not borrow from it sufficiently), fair use does not even arise as an issue. However, it also means that, once the plaintiff has proven (or the defendant concedes) that the defendant has committed an infringing act, the defendant then bears the burden of proving in court that his copying should nonetheless be excused as a fair use of the plaintiff's work.
Because of the defendant's burden of proof, some copyright owners frequently make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in his defense. This type of frivolous lawsuit is part of a much larger problem in First Amendment law; see Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
The law in the United States is executed based upon precedence. In other words, how the last judge to make a ruling interpreted the law. This copyright issue has been flip-flopping for decades; the DMCA is an attempt to make it very clear to judges how they should rule (the ruling you cite is from 1994, the DMCA was approved in 1998).
The Divineo decision is just the latest way to announce to the world (specifically, the U.S.) that the law is no longer fuzzy. Once you pass something like the DMCA, you can't go back to the past and bring up examples of "fair use" anymore; that's the point of passing new laws like the DMCA- to get rid of the confusion.
QUOTE(d-x-j @ Oct 6 2006, 01:14 AM)
the DCMA does not distinguish between the two. it gives many variables as to what is and is not legal under fair use but does not separate sofware that has/ does not have anti piracy in it. it seems that this may be a hole in the laws. ive been reading through it and i cant find any separation between protected and unprotected software. unless im overlooking something, this means M$ and any other company that publishes software does not have the right to prevent backups from being made.
Some excerpts:
QUOTE
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
That's the serial number vs. real copy protection issue.
QUOTE
`(ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
.
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
.
And that's the people selling modchips. Notice the "import" reference, too.
Post by: d-x-j on October 05, 2006, 07:38:00 PM
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 02:19 AM)
The law in the United States is executed based upon precedence. In other words, how the last judge to make a ruling interpreted the law. This copyright issue has been flip-flopping for decades; the DMCA is an attempt to make it very clear to judges how they should rule (the ruling you cite is from 1994, the DMCA was approved in 1998).
The Divineo decision is just the latest way to announce to the world (specifically, the U.S.) that the law is no longer fuzzy. Once you pass something like the DMCA, you can't go back to the past and bring up examples of "fair use" anymore; that's the point of passing new laws like the DMCA- to get rid of the confusion.
i just cant see this being implimented based on DCMA regulation. good point, it is an attempt to give the law a clear and obvious feel, but it still doesnt touch the topic at hand, video games.
why is it that linux can make a program to bypass the security for free and they are not a target, yet divineo sells chips that, in the end, do the same thing? and are under fire?
money.video games are more profitable than hollywood!
notice the marketing strategy of M$ on the 360. the add on sales at launch.case mods, skins, xna, retro games, they cloned what the scene is doing because they know it makes money!
it feels like they just want control over the mod scene so they get most of the profit. the DCMA is just the tool. so....
the DCMA can be used on both sides for argument as it stands now and im for fair use.
Post by: jxoxn21 on October 05, 2006, 08:02:00 PM
Post by: gainpresence on October 05, 2006, 08:07:00 PM
Post by: epsilon72 on October 05, 2006, 08:21:00 PM
Post by: d-x-j on October 05, 2006, 08:27:00 PM
QUOTE(gainpresence @ Oct 6 2006, 03:14 AM)
Most people don't realize this, but Fair Use allows one EXACT copy of a computer program, which means you must use the same media.. Hard drives don't fit that bill, and you certainly can't "rip" games (remove demos, etc).
the DCMA does not distinguish anywhere between any of the mediums one can use for backup. flash, hd, dvd, cd-rom, floppy. the protection is for the data, not what the data is on. if this was the case, then when u buy windows or any other software on disc and install it to ur hd, ur in violation of the DCMA. every time u rip a disc of music u purchased into windows to convert to mp3 for ur mp3 player, i guess ur in violation then too? if this was true, M$ would be in court for Media Player.
Post by: Ninjaman on October 05, 2006, 09:02:00 PM
Post by: asspants on October 05, 2006, 09:10:00 PM
QUOTE(d-x-j @ Oct 5 2006, 06:55 PM)
if u read into the DCMA, you will see that when a consumer purchases software, the purchaser is allowed to make 1 backup copy of their purchase.u are not allowed to make 2 copies, just one. many software providers dont incorporate anti piracy into their software for this reason, but all of the games we buy do.
You just made all that up.
QUOTE
this is in fact not legal under the DCMA because it prevents u from making a backup of the software. look it up. u wont believe what these companies really get away with when it comes to these laws(DCMA).so if a legal battle does arise for any of these vendors, there is the argument. there is NO means of making a backup of your games until the actual unit is modified to do so. M$ doesnt offer any solution either so as a consumer, we are entitled to access to the tools for backing up our software. 1 scratch on a disc can ruin a $50 investment. when u get 30 + games under ur belt, and add it up ($1500), u bet ur ass im gonna back it up so 50 years from now ill still have my investment. as good as the day i bought it. we, as consumers, have this legal right under the DCMA!!!!!!!!!!! the legal system cant prosicute one part of the law that contradicts the other.
I can't take legal advice from someone who can't be bothered to type the word 'you' instead of 'u'
The issue at hand is not "is it legal to make copies" the issue is that these mod chips allow for circumvention of access controls for rights management.
Yeah I agree it's fucked up.
Post by: d-x-j on October 05, 2006, 10:07:00 PM
QUOTE(asspants @ Oct 6 2006, 04:17 AM)
You just made all that up.
I can't take legal advice from someone who can't be bothered to type the word 'you' instead of 'u'
The issue at hand is not "is it legal to make copies" the issue is that these mod chips allow for circumvention of access controls for rights management.
Yeah I agree it's fucked up.
im not a lawyer, i dont give legal advice, and none of this is made up.
what? i just pulled this out of thin air? please.
http://www.copyright...ents/index.html
read comment 15 from Ken Arromdee
"circumvention of access controls for rights management."??? what does that even mean?
the game consoles dont make money for the industry. the games do!!! they dont care if we make our homebrew apps. they support it now
ever hear of "xna"? they want us to get more involved with the homebrew scene.
they just want to prevent piracy of software that has copyrights. if "U" bothered to read, "U" would see.
QUOTE(asspants @ Oct 6 2006, 04:17 AM)
You just made all that up.
I can't take legal advice from someone who can't be bothered to type the word 'you' instead of 'u'
The issue at hand is not "is it legal to make copies" the issue is that these mod chips allow for circumvention of access controls for rights management.
Yeah I agree it's fucked up.
http://www.copyright...tion/hr2281.pdf
go read.
Post by: 47_M450N_47 on October 05, 2006, 10:15:00 PM
QUOTE
I always thought that a modchip itself it not illegal because it really doesn't do anything. Its the software/program that is illegal right?...or am I wrong...for example speaking of the original Xbox...you can install the modchip by itself and it ain't going to do much...install the chip with a bios then it is illegal.
That does prove a point. The chip is simply what carries the BIOS that allows playing backups. If they make chips illegal, they should make all xboxes except for the 1.6 illegal because you can flash the EEPROM with a hacked BIOS and play burned games. If MS embedded a modchip into their own consoles, that's their fault.
Post by: 47_M450N_47 on October 05, 2006, 10:21:00 PM
*pun intended*
Post by: cory1492 on October 05, 2006, 11:18:00 PM
So without all the legal babble, what I am essentially lead to beleive by these actions are that:
On their own, by themselves, "modchips" do nothing and cant really be illegal (and if they are deemed so, perhaps we should call them PCB mounted IC's instead?
)But, lets put this in simpler terms...
Toast isnt illegal (ie:xbox)
Jam isnt illegal (ie: PCB mounted IC)
The seeds in the jam are from plausibly questionable sources (ie: the software that can be flashed to make the PCB do different things when attached serially or in parallel to another IC)
But, because Toast+Jam+"the wrong" Seeds can plausibly do illegal things (and I cant think of a current PC or CD/DVD writer than cant plausibly do illegal things with the right/wrong seeds) all of a sudden Jam is illegal and people who sell Jam are successfully getting sued? Ridiculous if you ask me, especially since CD and DVD burner manufactures arent getting sued too.
Me-thinks its time we switch to honey instead.
Post by: trey85stang on October 06, 2006, 12:06:00 AM
QUOTE(Thraxen @ Oct 5 2006, 11:19 PM)
Stupid ruling. Modchips shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
says who? they instigate piracy... why should they be legal?
QUOTE(d-x-j @ Oct 6 2006, 12:55 AM)
if u read into the DCMA, you will see that when a consumer purchases software, the purchaser is allowed to make 1 backup copy of their purchase.u are not allowed to make 2 copies, just one. many software providers dont incorporate anti piracy into their software for this reason, but all of the games we buy do. this is in fact not legal under the DCMA because it prevents u from making a backup of the software. look it up. u wont believe what these companies really get away with when it comes to these laws(DCMA).so if a legal battle does arise for any of these vendors, there is the argument. there is NO means of making a backup of your games until the actual unit is modified to do so. M$ doesnt offer any solution either so as a consumer, we are entitled to access to the tools for backing up our software. 1 scratch on a disc can ruin a $50 investment. when u get 30 + games under ur belt, and add it up ($1500), u bet ur ass im gonna back it up so 50 years from now ill still have my investment. as good as the day i bought it. we, as consumers, have this legal right under the DCMA!!!!!!!!!!! the legal system cant prosicute one part of the law that contradicts the other.
wrong... you can only backup games under the dcma if it does not involve bypassing any security measures. To backup an xbox game or a dvd requires bypassing security, therefore it is not a legal method to create a backup.
Post by: Odb718 on October 06, 2006, 02:38:00 AM
and I'd like to think mod chips are more for homebrew...
But the ruling is ridiculous. As rosincore pointed out, Divineo doesn't have anything to do with HDLoader. On top of that, you can really only make 1 back up of a game (per xbox) with HDLoader. You need additional software to do any actual piracy with the ripped game. Last time I checked HDLoader didn't even have network capabilities. Sure, with an upgraded hdd, or a small game you could copy the game more then once. But no one would do something so dumb.
LOL divineo should fight it and get every guy in California on the xbox-scene as an expert witness
It's a shame they didn't push dont copy that floppy harder in the '80s. See how this country turned out!?
Post by: icedemon360 on October 06, 2006, 05:42:00 AM
Post by: ir0nw0lf on October 06, 2006, 09:25:00 AM
QUOTE
Kinda weird to see a Japanese company sue a French/Canadian company using the US court ...
Looks like the lawyer(s) in this case went to the Rube Goldberg School of Law.
Talk about a lame way to go about things. This also goes to show how much the DMCA sucks and needs to get launched into space.
Post by: NIA BackStabber on October 06, 2006, 10:45:00 AM
Post by: TRIaXOR on October 06, 2006, 11:18:00 AM
how the hell does a US court think it can get away with fining a company that doesnt even operate in its own country
world police the may think they are, in reality they're not.
Post by: snart on October 06, 2006, 12:36:00 PM
QUOTE(d-x-j @ Oct 6 2006, 10:46 AM)
but under the DCMA , we are allowed to make a backup of "all" software we buy, even though it states a person can not bypass security to do it. this is the arguement.
which rule is accurate?
You're doing selective reading. You can't pick out one sentence and say it contradicts others. You have to read the whole thing. You're legally allowed to make one back up of what you purchase, but you can't bypass any copy protection.
Put that together, and you can legally make one backup copy of software if the copyright/license owner lets you.
Period. End of discussion. This argument has been brought up many times before. As you can see from the recent ruling with Divineo, the judges are not confused.
Post by: TRIaXOR on October 06, 2006, 01:07:00 PM
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 07:43 PM)
As you can see from the recent ruling with Divineo, the judges are not confused.
I think they are, they are prosecuting a company and people outwith thier jurisdiction, since when does the DMCA apply in Canada or France?
Post by: rosincore on October 06, 2006, 01:36:00 PM
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 02:43 PM)
As you can see from the recent ruling with Divineo, the judges are not confused.
QUOTE(TRIaXOR @ Oct 6 2006, 03:14 PM)
I think they are, they are prosecuting a company and people outwith thier jurisdiction, since when does the DMCA apply in Canada or France?
Owned.
... and TRIaXOR is right.
Post by: Thraxen on October 06, 2006, 04:58:00 PM
QUOTE(trey85stang @ Oct 6 2006, 01:13 AM)
says who? they instigate piracy... why should they be legal?
So do PCs, VCRs, DVRs, CDRs, etc... Then take examples of other crimes... you could make the same argument against things like guns, lock picks, etc... But they also have perfectly legal uses too. What's wrong with the people that just run Linux boxes? Sure, they may be primarily used for illegal activities, but, again, what about PCs? I'd wager that the majority of PCs in the world have illegal software, even if it's just a copy of WinZIP that is past the trial use period.
Also, modchips themselves don't do a damn thing. You could put one in your XBox as-is and it won't allow you to copy anything. It's the modified BIOS that does the circumventing. In fact, in the case of the XBox, you could just do a TSOP flash to get the modified BIOS on there without a modchip at all and do the copying. Again, it's the BIOS that does real the work.
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 01:43 PM)
Period. End of discussion. This argument has been brought up many times before. As you can see from the recent ruling with Divineo, the judges are not confused.
Please... judges are always making stupid decisions.
Post by: NIA BackStabber on October 06, 2006, 08:27:00 PM
Post by: d-x-j on October 06, 2006, 08:39:00 PM
QUOTE(NIA BackStabber @ Oct 7 2006, 03:34 AM)
theres apps out there that dont need hacked bios to copy games to the hdd softmodded xboxs can rip games to the hdd its an app thats installed when u softmod it i think its dvd2xbox not sure
softmod installer deluxe.
Post by: d-x-j on October 06, 2006, 08:51:00 PM
QUOTE(snart @ Oct 6 2006, 07:43 PM)
You're doing selective reading. You can't pick out one sentence and say it contradicts others. You have to read the whole thing. You're legally allowed to make one back up of what you purchase, but you can't bypass any copy protection.
Put that together, and you can legally make one backup copy of software if the copyright/license owner lets you.
Period. End of discussion. This argument has been brought up many times before. As you can see from the recent ruling with Divineo, the judges are not confused.
i understand. but i dont think its right. some software you can backup and some you cant? i mean does that sound right to you?
the DCMA contradicts itself. im not selective reading. it states both sides.
i work with 3 software engineers that say it can be read both ways also.
like it was written to be used on a case by case basis.not a "set in stone" law.
this leaves all kinds of room for interpretation, yours and mine both.
both , probably equally right..... depending on the cicumstances.
software is fragile on disc and if this is the only medium we are given to use, then
we deserve the right to make copies, copyright protected or not.
Post by: d-x-j on October 06, 2006, 11:27:00 PM
QUOTE(NIA BackStabber @ Oct 7 2006, 03:34 AM)
theres apps out there that dont need hacked bios to copy games to the hdd softmodded xboxs can rip games to the hdd its an app thats installed when u softmod it i think its dvd2xbox not sure
the softmod does not touch the bios at all. and after booting, a person can rip games and back them up on a pc. programs can be installed to direct-rip games from the xbox to the pc, not to mention movies and music. no chip involved.
so...
like others have said,
if this case against divineo is real, and it sticks,
can microsoft be sued for making the xbox? since it allows piracy of almost every dvd on the market?
that wont happen, and it shouldnt happen to divineo.
Post by: openxdkman on October 07, 2006, 02:23:00 AM
I think DMCA and the way judges interpret it is just another additional symptom of something more global that is occuring in US at the moment...
- Profitable war (for industry, not for soldiers or their family) triggered with false arguments
- Jail sentences allowed against webmasters showing porn drawings (not photograph, just drawings)
- Torture accepted (with a vote) in order to make prisoners talk
- More and more people killed in catastrophes triggered by global planet overheating but kyoto chart ignored
It's smells like the rich shareholder gets more and more protection whereas the little poor individual gets his freedom reduced over time... After some while the unbalance will be too much excessive and some social explosion will occur...
Let's pray for them, in hope they get a brighter future, but our life outside US shouldn't become scary just because they attempt sometimes to apply their "illogic" laws to foreigners. So if we don't live in USA, let's ignore US courts.
I will agree that selling a modchip is as bad as comitting a piracy act the day american weapon manufacturers get a jail sentence each time they sell a weapon used in a massive slaughter of innocent people in Africa.
Post by: d-x-j on October 07, 2006, 06:03:00 AM
QUOTE(openxdkman @ Oct 7 2006, 09:30 AM)
I hope sued people outside US will just ignore US court (they won't be able to spend holidays in US, but well... there are plenty other interesting countries to visit...)
I think DMCA and the way judges interpret it is just another additional symptom of something more global that is occuring in US at the moment...
- Profitable war (for industry, not for soldiers or their family) triggered with false arguments
- Jail sentences allowed against webmasters showing porn drawings (not photograph, just drawings)
- Torture accepted (with a vote) in order to make prisoners talk
- More and more people killed in catastrophes triggered by global planet overheating but kyoto chart ignored
It's smells like the rich shareholder gets more and more protection whereas the little poor individual gets his freedom reduced over time... After some while the unbalance will be too much excessive and some social explosion will occur...
Let's pray for them, in hope they get a brighter future, but our life outside US shouldn't become scary just because they attempt sometimes to apply their "illogic" laws to foreigners. So if we don't live in USA, let's ignore US courts.
I will agree that selling a modchip is as bad as comitting a piracy act the day american weapon manufacturers get a jail sentence each time they sell a weapon used in a massive slaughter of innocent people in Africa.
well spoken.
Post by: TRIaXOR on October 07, 2006, 03:34:00 PM
QUOTE(openxdkman @ Oct 7 2006, 09:30 AM)
I hope sued people outside US will just ignore US court (they won't be able to spend holidays in US, but well... there are plenty other interesting countries to visit...)
I think DMCA and the way judges interpret it is just another additional symptom of something more global that is occuring in US at the moment...
- Profitable war (for industry, not for soldiers or their family) triggered with false arguments
- Jail sentences allowed against webmasters showing porn drawings (not photograph, just drawings)
- Torture accepted (with a vote) in order to make prisoners talk
- More and more people killed in catastrophes triggered by global planet overheating but kyoto chart ignored
It's smells like the rich shareholder gets more and more protection whereas the little poor individual gets his freedom reduced over time... After some while the unbalance will be too much excessive and some social explosion will occur...
Let's pray for them, in hope they get a brighter future, but our life outside US shouldn't become scary just because they attempt sometimes to apply their "illogic" laws to foreigners. So if we don't live in USA, let's ignore US courts.
I will agree that selling a modchip is as bad as comitting a piracy act the day american weapon manufacturers get a jail sentence each time they sell a weapon used in a massive slaughter of innocent people in Africa.
My sentiments exactly.
Post by: Altima NEO on October 07, 2006, 06:59:00 PM
What position are we in?
Post by: openxdkman on October 08, 2006, 03:03:00 AM
Laws like DMCA are spreading worldwide, and they are threatening individual freedom (like the envy to customize a machine you purchased).
Be very careful next time you vote.
Politics know they are playing with fire.
One side will support these laws (they are under influence of lobbyings) and other side won't.
Post by: trey85stang on October 08, 2006, 10:04:00 PM
QUOTE(TRIaXOR @ Oct 6 2006, 08:14 PM)
I think they are, they are prosecuting a company and people outwith thier jurisdiction, since when does the DMCA apply in Canada or France?
Ever since they started doing business with USA residents.
QUOTE(openxdkman @ Oct 7 2006, 09:30 AM)
I hope sued people outside US will just ignore US court (they won't be able to spend holidays in US, but well... there are plenty other interesting countries to visit...)
I think DMCA and the way judges interpret it is just another additional symptom of something more global that is occuring in US at the moment...
- Profitable war (for industry, not for soldiers or their family) triggered with false arguments
- Jail sentences allowed against webmasters showing porn drawings (not photograph, just drawings)
- Torture accepted (with a vote) in order to make prisoners talk
- More and more people killed in catastrophes triggered by global planet overheating but kyoto chart ignored
It's smells like the rich shareholder gets more and more protection whereas the little poor individual gets his freedom reduced over time... After some while the unbalance will be too much excessive and some social explosion will occur...
Let's pray for them, in hope they get a brighter future, but our life outside US shouldn't become scary just because they attempt sometimes to apply their "illogic" laws to foreigners. So if we don't live in USA, let's ignore US courts.
I will agree that selling a modchip is as bad as comitting a piracy act the day american weapon manufacturers get a jail sentence each time they sell a weapon used in a massive slaughter of innocent people in Africa.
Post by: TRIaXOR on October 09, 2006, 11:40:00 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE(TRIaXOR @ Oct 6 2006, 08:14 PM)
I think they are, they are prosecuting a company and people outwith thier jurisdiction, since when does the DMCA apply in Canada or France?
QUOTE(trey85stang @ Oct 9 2006, 05:11 AM)
Ever since they started doing business with USA residents.
Thats BS, so If I buy a gun mail order from the US, I dont get prosecuted but the merchant does in a Scottish court? I think not, I'd get done, not the seller, and the same applies here, the DMCA means diddly outside the US even if US residents are buying stuff from em, the BUYERS are are the ones that should be prosecuted under the DMCA, not outside sources.
so let me make it clear..
the DMCA is a United States law passed by a bunch of corporate loving senators in Washington D.C, it does NOT apply OUTSIDE the US as it is a US LAW, remember, we dont stay in Planet America no matter what some of you guys think..
Post by: thejt on October 09, 2006, 02:44:00 PM
Now it is more apparent than ever.. I mean really; how many members of the house or senate actually know how to use their computer for anything other than reading and spreading partisan gossip!!
In the end I don't expect them to understand the legitimacies of "fair use" because they lack the understanding how it all works and what it all means for lack of better words.
Like someone said earlier.. it all about lobbyists. He with the best show wins. Unfortunately there is very few capable of conveing the message to the right people about other legitimate reasons to backup. Take for instance the 360, whether people want to admit it or not, it scratches disks itself. I know some dont want to believe it but its very apparent to me just looking at our disc repair service and the overwhelming amount of 360 discs that come in looking exactly alike. This was not so on the Xbox 1. Should a guy have to eat $60 dollars because a few more cents wasnt spent padding the inside of the DVD drive?
Post by: Goldenbear on October 11, 2006, 02:29:00 PM
QUOTE(openxdkman @ Oct 7 2006, 01:30 AM)
I hope sued people outside US will just ignore US court (they won't be able to spend holidays in US, but well... there are plenty other interesting countries to visit...)
I think DMCA and the way judges interpret it is just another additional symptom of something more global that is occuring in US at the moment...
- Profitable war (for industry, not for soldiers or their family) triggered with false arguments
- Jail sentences allowed against webmasters showing porn drawings (not photograph, just drawings)
- Torture accepted (with a vote) in order to make prisoners talk
- More and more people killed in catastrophes triggered by global planet overheating but kyoto chart ignored
It's smells like the rich shareholder gets more and more protection whereas the little poor individual gets his freedom reduced over time... After some while the unbalance will be too much excessive and some social explosion will occur...
Let's pray for them, in hope they get a brighter future, but our life outside US shouldn't become scary just because they attempt sometimes to apply their "illogic" laws to foreigners. So if we don't live in USA, let's ignore US courts.
I will agree that selling a modchip is as bad as comitting a piracy act the day american weapon manufacturers get a jail sentence each time they sell a weapon used in a massive slaughter of innocent people in Africa.
Put down the crack pipe and get off of your "US Sucks" high horse.
I don't know any sane person that thinks the DCMA is a good law. It was written by a bunch of idiot politicians who only listened to the well-paid corporate lobbyists. It was NOT part of some US conspiracy to ruin the world
The sad reality is, this lawsuit was mostly caused by all the jokers that have mis-used the mod-chips to pirate games. Yes, that includes the people who rent a game, copy it to their Xbox, then "forget" to delete it after returning the game.
You don't want to pay $60 for a game? THEN DON'T PLAY IT!!! It really ticks me off to see people making $80K/year pirate games/software/CDs/DVDs. If I could pay for my software back when I was a student working my way through school, so can anyone else!
Post by: openxdkman on October 17, 2006, 01:40:00 AM
2) Also repeating again and again that no one should commit piracy acts is off-topic here.
I remember you that the problem is that a merchant received an enormous fine because of the way the tool he sold can be used. That tool can be used for other activities than piracy. For example for customizing a console in order to create programs running under Linux and a legal cromwel bios.
If a judge interprets a (too much) complex law and finally reaches conclusion a knife seller is as guilty as the murderer who used the knife, then an absolutely fundamental principle has just been ripped away...
And that is the subject of this thread. Not piracy in itself (which is already considered bad by everyone here, including moderators, no need to try to convince us, and anger will lead you nowhere).