

Man arrested for modifying Xboxes - kasunh
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/04/console-hacker-arrested-faces-up-to-ten-years-in-jail/

======
staunch
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
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.

~~~
designtofly
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.

~~~
derefr
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.

~~~
gacek
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.

~~~
derefr
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?

------
pmorici
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
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.

~~~
designtofly
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
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.

