
Student Arrested for Jailbreaking Game Consoles - MicahWedemeyer
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/game-console-jailbreaking-arrest/
======
caffeine
This is crazy, _especially_ in California, where jails are completely
overpopulated (the jail currently holding Hans Reiser is designed for ~1700
people and currently has ~3400).

Agree with ujjwalg - sending someone to jail for that is crazy.

The point of jail is to physically stop someone from hurting other _people._
As in with fists or knives or guns. It's to stop violence. It is _not_ to
redress perceived economic or copyright infringements.

Are they serious?! You're going to take a human being, a fellow countryman
(and a technically skilled one!) and actually _forcibly confine him to a cage_
, because he circumvented the copy protection on a _video game_?!

What kind of crazy society is this, anyway. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

~~~
scott_s
Using your rationale, then Bernie Madoff should not be in prison, either.

I agree this person should not go to the prison, but I think your
classification is too simple. Madoff hurt people - not physically, but
financially. And the harm he caused was more devastating than if he had
administered a physical beating.

~~~
quizbiz
It makes _us_ happy to see that Bernie Madoff is going to jail but how much
good is it really doing?

------
TJensen
The DMCA is one of the worst laws to come out of Washington ever. I don't
think there is another law that so completely proves that Washington is
beholden to corporate interests far more than people's interests. Somebody on
the linked article calls it a corportocracy, and I don't think that is too far
off.

That said, it is illegal, it is not surprising that you're going to get
busted.

------
baddox
Both articles on the front page here fail to mention that he was doing this as
an advertised commercial service.

~~~
jrockway
Auto mechanics work on cars as an advertised commercial service. It turns out
that tinkering with parts should not be a crime.

(Yes, this guy was doing it to pirate video games. But handgun manufacturers
build guns solely to murder other human beings, and auto mechanics can install
equipment that allows you to exceed the speed limit. Neither of those are
crimes, so why should modifying a game console be one?)

~~~
TrevorJ
"handgun manufacturers build guns solely to murder other human beings"

That's a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Very few people obtain a
handgun legally for the purpose of Murdering somebody. (Less than 1% of
legally obtained firearms are used in a crime) The primary reason to own one
is for personal protection which implies the direct _preservation_ of life.
Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest.

~~~
jrockway
What are you intending to do with your gun, if not to kill someone? Shoot
their arm off? ("Your arm's off!" "No it isn't.")

Okay, that's fine...

~~~
TrevorJ
Not unless you have to. Walk softly, carry a big stick.

If all else fails then yes, I'm sorry, but yes, if somebody breaks into a
house and threatens my family I will threaten them with force. The lives of 4
people who are innocent are greater than that of one who willingly put
themselves into a criminal position. Do I wish that that wasn't necessary,
sure, but that's not the reality of human nature. The threat of force has
always been a factor in survival. Even in nature.

Poison caterpillars rarely get eaten, the birds learn to avoid them.

------
blhack
FTA:

 _The DMCA says, “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”_

Not to be a pedant here, but obviously the protection wasn't every effective.

What is to stop me saying something like:

"THIS POST IS ENCRYPTED WITH ROT26 ENCRYPTION"

then suing the pants off of all of you for circumventing my protection? Yeah,
that is a stupid example, but things have gotten _WAY_ out of control here.

~~~
pyre
Yea, 'effectively' doesn't mean that the 'technological measure' has to do
it's job effectively, but that the results of it 'in effect' controls access.

ROT-26 is a poor example. It does nothing to 'control access' to your text.
Using ROT-13 would be a better example since it's so stupidly simplistic that
a moron could crack it.

------
jzdziarski
If pre-existing copyright law is to be considered, then we are entitled to
make an archival copy of a work to serve as a backup. What's the point of
allowing for an archival copy if that law also doesn't imply that you should
be allowed to use said archival copy in the event that the original is
destroyed? And if you are entitled to use the archival copy, then you
summarily should be entitled to remove whatever restrictions from a device in
order to lawfully use that archival copy.

IMO this guy did nothing wrong based on the spirit of the law, but it is
rather the DMCA that is in conflict. If you want to charge anyone with a
crime, it shouldn't be the guy who removed the restrictions, it should be
whoever was actually pirating games using his modifications.

~~~
pyre
IIRC, being able to make an archival copy is not a law, but is part of a
Supreme Court decision (i.e. 'case law'). The DMCA was enacted _after_ the
Supreme Court decision, so I would assume that legally it would 'override' it.
I'm definitely not a lawyer though so I have no clue if I'm right. Either way,
I'm sure there will be a case at some point challenging this discrepancy to
the Supreme Court and we'll see what they say at that point.

~~~
ricaurte
A law by Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court
has the final say on the Constitutionality of laws in the United States via
judicial review, which was used for the first time by the court in Marbury v.
Madison.

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13.html)

------
jsz0
It's probably about time the geeks & nerds of the US figured out a way to pool
our resources and get these laws changed. Lobbying works. If we had the money
and a legitimate political organization things could change.

------
jzdziarski
Methinks he's got a good case to be made under DMCA exemptions for
interoperability. While the programs are not independently created, running a
lawfully archived copy of a game you have the right to use is a valid use of
mod-chipping, and this interoperability is needed in order to use that lawful
copy.

By the way why is the wired author calling this "jailbreaking" - it's
modchipping, completely different from "jailbreaking".. in fact, he even used
an iPhone as his graphic... o_O The two are completely unrelated.

~~~
pyre
Must be part of the 'newer' generation that was first introduced to taking
back control of their devices through the efforts to unlock the iPhone rather
than modchipping PS1/XBox/PS2/GC/etc. If not then he's a moron.

------
bullseye
Another fine example of laws existing to protect the greater goo... oh wait.

Why is it that someone can buy drug paraphernalia at a retail store? Isn't it
because there are theoretical uses for those products that are legitimate? To
convict him, wouldn't they have to prove that there was NO legitimate use for
his "services"?

I just don't see how this can possibly go the distance.

EDIT: I should clarify that I mean "legal" paraphernalia, such as rolling
paper and the like. Not the kinds that have been explicitly deemed illegal.

~~~
jcromartie
I can buy a bong or a bowl at a store across the street from my house. In
fact, they are quite fancy and expensive.

------
ujjwalg
He definitely broke a law. But to send him to jail for doing this is just
ridiculous. He should be penalized financially for this and thatz it.

IMO, anyone who jailbreaks their own stuff shouldn't be put under the law, but
someone doing it for others for money definitely are breaking the laws. But it
is not something that taxpayers money should be wasted in sending him to jail
and going through the investigation. Fine him and be done with it.

~~~
jrockway
It's legal for me to pay someone to clean my house.

Why should it be illegal for me to pay someone to remove restrictions from a
device I own?

~~~
ujjwalg
they are not charging people who got their consoles jailbroken. They charged
the guy who was jailbreaking them for money.

Moreover, the analogy you have is completely irrelevant. I was not arguing
against the moral issue behind it. I was saying he broke the LAW and thatz it.

~~~
jacquesm
He broke a law that should not exist in the first place.

------
asciilifeform
We do not own property.

Only our masters may _actually_ own property.

 _"The "you don't own your computer" paradigm is not merely wrong. It is
violently, disastrously wrong, and the consequences of this error are likely
to be felt for generations to come, unless steps are taken to prevent it."_

"Ethics for Programmers: Primum non Nocere"

<http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html>

~~~
twopoint718
That is really an amazing article, I couldn't agree more.

------
derobert
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=741661>

