Export thread

http://cbs13.com/local/video.game.modif ... 13623.html

It's so comforting to know that while we have to face murderers and rapists and muggers in this country, our tax dollars are hard at work keeping the streets safe from sleazebags who dare to open up and tinker with legally bought-and-paid-for hardware. I can sleep soundly tonight.
:tongue:

Yeah, well, that's what happens when you break the law. And I guarantee prosecuting this guy isn't allowing some other villain to roam the streets.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to make a jest at the police (though I see I made it sound that way, I could have worded it better) but that a guy's being locked up for 10 years for messing with equipment that was owned by either himself or people who gave him permission to mess with it. He wasn't even pirating games. I don't see any difference in legality from what this guy was doing and someone, say, adding unofficially supported gas-saving features to their own car. He enabled the consoles to play pirated games, yes, but the article doesn't mention that doing so also enables the consoles to play homebrew games, which is a 100% legal use.

Again, criticizing the money spent on keeping a guy locked up over a victimless/practically non-existent crime -- not the police following the orders.

Ten years of big Bubba just for that. :bush:

The article says he's accused of modding these systems specifically for pirated games.

the problem with that is no way to mod a console "specifically" for pirated games. Modding simply allows it to run unsigned code, which is the exploit that both pirated and homebrew games use. It's either modded or it is not; you can't mod for pirating and not homebrew or vice versa. He could have modded them with intent for pirated games, but as the article doesn't specify it as such, I figured it was most likely that the article is simply biased.

David said:

He could have modded them with intent for pirated games, but as the article doesn't specify it as such, I figured it was most likely that the article is simply biased.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that's the root of our disagreement. I don't instantly assume the article is biased. I assume their statement about why the guy is being charged reflects the FBI case thus far. I will bet anything they busted this guy because he's been modding consoles specifically to be used with pirated games.

When they say that it's modding specifically for pirated games they probably mean they have a case that can prove it. During the trial they will have to show that his modifications were simply used to break the law, whether it's in the form of games on the console or in an ad he posted on craigslist or whatever.

I thought that modding consoles was covered by the reverse-engineering exception, but I guess not. Maybe he was in the business deeper than just modding consoles...

Wait, and how on earth would modding a console I rightfully own for pirated games be considered unlawfull????

No question about the act of pirating games itself, but as far as I am concerned, I have every right to mod MY console in any way I see fit.

zero said:

Wait, and how on earth would modding a console I rightfully own for pirated games be considered unlawfull????

No question about the act of pirating games itself, but as far as I am concerned, I have every right to mod MY console in any way I see fit.

Click to expand...

Well, if you live in the USA, there is an wonderful* little** law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It says that breaking encryption, whatever the purpose, is illegal.

*that is to say, horrible
**massively overused

I believe that the act also (don't have the exact quote, someone correct me if I'm wrong) specifically gives the consumers the right to create and use back-up copies of their digital purchases for personal use, so long as said copies are not being distributed. The only way to exercise your right to make and use back-ups of the things you buy is to manually remove the encryption that the manufacturer puts in.

I would agree more with a punishment of steep fines (say $1000 per system mod) instead of prison time. Does this guy pose a real threat to society? Why spend state money to lock him up in an already overcrowded system?

Good to know copyright violators can still be sentenced to longer jail periods than say, a rapist.

Frankie said:

Good to know copyright violators can still be sentenced to longer jail periods than say, a rapist.

Click to expand...

Hey, first offense plea agreement, you might not even have to serve jail time at all for the latter.


JUSTICE!

David made the statement that he wasn't even pirating games. So, he was enabling others to do it. It'd be somewhat similar to someone selling prescription medication to others. The ownership of the prescription medication isn't necessarily illegal, but distributing it to others so that they can use it is.

10 years is a bit extreme, and I believe is the maximum sentence. But, the law was broken. Yes, it's relatively harmless and he should simply just be fined and his wages garnished. Unfortunately, that's not the way it normally works.

People who committed acts that in no way, shape or form actually hurt anyone should not spend time in jail. This is what fines and community service is for.

David said:

I believe that the act also (don't have the exact quote, someone correct me if I'm wrong) specifically gives the consumers the right to create and use back-up copies of their digital purchases for personal use, so long as said copies are not being distributed. The only way to exercise your right to make and use back-ups of the things you buy is to manually remove the encryption that the manufacturer puts in.

Click to expand...

Unless they've added an amendment to it, that was one of the specific criticisms of the law, that it didn't allow consumers to make backups. It does allow backups to be made in some limited cases by librarians, archivists, historians and others intent on preserving culture or some other wording, but it doesn't allow backups of DVDs, games, ROMs or anything else. In fact, one of the amendments they were thinking of adding was simply allowing bypassing of a dongle if the company went out of business. (seriously, the law made it illegal for hospitals/doctors to bypass a dongle on an old medical program, even if they couldn't get a replacement).

As far as I know, there is no right to make a back-up copy of video games, DVDs, or computer software.

Seraphyn said:

People who committed acts that in no way, shape or form actually hurt anyone should not spend time in jail. This is what fines and community service is for.

Click to expand...

Ironically, people come out of jail worse than how they went in, in terms of knowledge on how to evade and break the law.

A good friend of mine was jailed for two months for not squealing on his friend in his motor club (if he had, they'd have taken revenge). Bastard and coward cops tried to force him even knowing what would happen if he had spilled the beans. They tampered with the evidence and basically had him jailed for assisting in attempted murder. Ridiculous - he was in the back seat of a car when his friend was driving it, and they had aimed an airgun (as in, plastic pellets) at a motorcyclist of a rival club to give him a scare. That guy immediately called the police and "witnesses" (other guys from that rival club) got his friend jailed but due to lack of evidence, they had to let him go. Sooo they jailed my friend who was just a passenger and they got him jailed using some bullshit reason.

Anyway, while he spent two months in jail, he learned a LOT and I meant a LOT LOT on how to make money through crime. If he had wanted to, he'd have been a middle person in shifted stolen hardware without any possible harm coming to him due to loopholes in the law. He had a dozen addresses for when he needed cheap goods or even parts for his car. The list goes on and on. My friend was not the kind to break the law but he sure was tempted when he saw how easy it was to make money and he felt cheated and deceived by the law already.

When people feel the law screwed them over (which is certainly the case here), all they'll do is find new ways to screw over the law in return. When you spent all your time being locked up with people who live to break the law, it WILL rub off on you.

-- Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:44 pm --

figmentPez said:

As far as I know, there is no right to make a back-up copy of video games, DVDs, or computer software.

Click to expand...

Luckily, there is in Europe. The USA just has too many greedy lobbyists of big corps preventing such a law of existing. Logically, since you buy a license and not the actual CD or tape, you should automatically have the right to make a copy since it doesn't affect the license. In reality, corps just want to prevent copies floating around which may be lent out or given away. In reality, copies can be very important. Many people don't want to keep their CDs inside their car so they make copies. US law makes them criminals, which is ridiculous because they just don't want their CDs to get stolen or damaged.

Incorrect, in the US you have to right to make ONE legal backup of any type of media that you buy.

CrimsonSoul said:

Incorrect, in the US you have to right to make ONE legal backup of any type of media that you buy.

Click to expand...

I'd really like to know what law says that. Honestly, in no way sarcastic, I want to know my legal rights concerning backups of media. As far as I know, game companies have asserted that consumers don't have a right (or need, supposedly) to backup their games, and I'd like to know if there is a definitive contradiction to that.

figmentPez said:

CrimsonSoul said:

Incorrect, in the US you have to right to make ONE legal backup of any type of media that you buy.

Click to expand...

I'd really like to know what law says that. Honestly, in no way sarcastic, I want to know my legal rights concerning backups of media. As far as I know, game companies have asserted that consumers don't have a right (or need, supposedly) to backup their games, and I'd like to know if there is a definitive contradiction to that.

Click to expand...

I really, really want to quote pieces of the "Paying with pennies" thread.

From the copyright law, I may be wrong when I made my above statement, I believe it is inferred that you can make one backup copy of something you bough. But from what I read now it seems like only libraries can make the backup that I was talking about. Here's the applicable copyright law from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106;

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives41

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —

Well, regardless of if a consumer has the right to make a backup of a DVD, the software to do so is illegal. A judge ruled so in a suit against a company selling DVD backup software. So, if you can make a backup copy of your DVD without any software help, then you're good. If you have to use software to break the encryption on the DVD, you're breaking the law in the US.

Then you have this court ruling:

Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry.

Bold added by me

-- Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:07 pm --

Now again, pointing to my above post "it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work"

Are you not archiving that DVD or CD when you make that one copy? So in that case you are legally allowed to produce one backup copy.

The court case you referenced, fig, refered to breaking the encryption on a DVD. So as long as you don't break the encryption your fine I guess, That's just stupid.

In the example above, I'm fairly sure that program refers to a TELEVISION program, as in an episode of a show, not a computer program.

AshburnerX said:

In the example above, I'm fairly sure that program refers to a TELEVISION program, as in an episode of a show, not a computer program.

Click to expand...

Right, but also like I was saying:
" it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work"

You're archiving the computer program when you make a copy of it, therefore it is legal to do. Also, isn't the TV show copyrighted by the people that made it? (yes, it is) and you are legally allowed to make a copy of that program when it airs to watch it whenever you want (archival purposes) and even fast forward through the commercials (time shifting) like your DVR does. You don't even OWN a copy of that television program and you're allowed to make an archival copy. provided of course that you don't make the same copy of that video twice, then it's illegal and you're a irate:

-- Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:30 pm --

Also, from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

"Can I backup my computer software?
Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:
the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
you are the legal owner of the copy; and
any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred."

*whistles innocently*
*hides self-modded PSP, Gamecube and Wii*

"You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films)."

right, but CD's or DVD's or Floppys of programs that you bought at a store you can backup

-- Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:46 pm --

There's currently a court case that got started in April/May 2009 going into the legalities of making backups of DVD movies

-- Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:47 pm --

Hold on, Fig, I'll dig some more, I'm sure there's more to it than that, give me a bit

CrimsonSoul said:

Hold on, Fig, I'll dig some more, I'm sure there's more to it than that, give me a bit

Click to expand...

Thank you, I'm really curious about this issue, because it all seems so nebulous and contradictory. There's such a huge push to take rights away from consumers. There can be no doubt that the DMCA is overly vague and that fair use needs some serious protection.

Well I guess I can't I have to finish my final due in 9 hours or so and I have my 2 year old in my lap and i need to go to wal-mart. Just go to copyright.gov and you can snoop about for yourself. Go go criminal justice degree!

CrimsonSoul said:

Well I guess I can't I have to finish my final due in 9 hours or so and I have my 2 year old in my lap and i need to go to wal-mart. Just go to copyright.gov and you can snoop about for yourself. Go go criminal justice degree!

Click to expand...

Well, thanks anyway. School is definitely more important than my bored curiosity. I'll probably just keep working on posts in the cosplay thread anyway. People seem to enjoy those more than my blustering about legal matters.

I enjoyed the blustering about legal matters

Thank God Im somewhere where I can copy something I buy.

Tress said:

Yeah, well, that's what happens when you break the law.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Fuck people who break stupid laws, after all those niggers shouldve stayed at the back of the bus, and women shouldnt demand the right to vote, after all, if its the law, it must be good.

I hope youre not breaking any state laws, because every state has countless idiotic ones (click any state in http://www.dumblaws.com, for example, some laws from Alabama and New York )

-Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
-Incestuous marriages are legal.
-It is illegal to impersonate a person of the clergy.
-It is illegal to maim oneself to escape duty.
-You may not drive barefooted.
-It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
-It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
-Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
-It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.
-Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.
-Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
-It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
-You must have windshield wipers on your car.
-You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
-Masks may not be worn in public.
-Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.
-It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
-Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
-You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.
-It is illegal for a woman to be on the street wearing “body hugging clothing”.
-Citizens may not greet each other by “putting one’s thumb to the nose and wiggling the fingers”.
-A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting.
-It is against the law to throw a ball at someone’s head for fun.
-The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
-New Yorkers cannot dissolve a marriage for irreconcilable differences, unless they both agree to it.
-A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.
-While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold his hands while looking toward the door.
-Slippers are not to be worn after 10:00 PM.

So lets not forget, break a law, no matter how idiotic, you must be wrong. :heythere:

Did you just compare making modded consoles to the civil rights movement. Fuck your hyperbole, I'm tired of that shit.

Twitch said:

Did you just compare making modded consoles to the civil rights movement. Fuck your hyperbole, I'm tired of that shit.

Click to expand...

Im just showing how idiotic the "he broke the law" arguement is, which is a worse and more tiring shit. Even an 8-year old wouldve noticed that by looking at the list of idiotic laws posted, not always "the law" = good, or makes sense.

Calm down, learn to fucking read, unbunch panties.

JCM said:

-Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.
-You must have windshield wipers on your car.
-It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
-Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
-You may not smoke within 100 feet of the entrance to a public building.
-It is against the law to throw a ball at someone’s head for fun.

Click to expand...

These actually make at least a bit of sense aranoid:

-Bear wrestling - as in two bears wrestling? Everyone agrees dog fighting is illegal, so...
-windshield wipers - it's a tad hard to see when it gets rainy if you don't have wipers, so that's a safety issue
- illegal for a driver to drive blindfolded - again, safety...
-topless women - if a man is legally allowed to be topless, why not? Besides, in places where women can be topless it seems like the only ones who do so are the ones you didn't really want to see :tongue:
- no smoking within blah blah - So no second hand smoke where someone would be forced to walk near you, doesn't seem unreasonable
- throw a ball at someone's head - are you saying throwing projectiles at people SHOULD be legal?

I just copied the list, but yeah, 10 out of 50 make sense. Im still browsing through http://www.dumblaws.com , here are some more gems-

-The mere possession of a lottery ticket is illegal in North Carolina and may result in a $2,000 fine.
-No one may be a professional fortune-teller, and if one wishes to pursue the practice as an amateur, it must be practiced in a school or church.
-Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.
-While having sex, you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled.
-If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.
-All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart.
-It is illegal to have sex in a churchyard.
-Oral sex is considered a crime against nature.
-A three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold.
-Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.
-Bingo games may not last over 5 hours unless it is held at a fair.
-Serving alcohol at a bingo game is not allowed.
-Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited.
-Women must have their bodies covered by at least 16 yards of cloth at all times.
-It is illegal to drive cars through city cemeteries for pleasure.
-In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker’s stand, you can be fined $25.
-Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.
-It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
-It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
-The Ohio driver’s education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.
-Participating or conducting a duel is prohibited.
-Breast feeding is not allowed in public.
-It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.
-No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.
-It is illegal to display colored chickens for sale.
-No person shall solicit sex from another of the same gender if it offends the second person.
-Posting signs at swimming pools is illegal.
-It is illegal to walk a cow down Lake Road.


And my fave, which I do wish enforcement -It’s against the law to sing off key.
That would end Britney's career.

And the classic Washington law http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/washington
-It is mandatory for a motorist with criminal intentions to stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town.

JCM said:

-It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.

Click to expand...

I wonder if that's a law aimed at making harder to run brothels, even illegally. "No, this isn't a whore house, these girls just live here and like to have visitors..."

JCM said:

-Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.

Click to expand...

Dammit... now what am i gonna do with all these elephants!?

Jude rules that RealDVD is illegal

"SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge ruled here late Tuesday that it was unlawful to traffic in goods to copy DVDs.

"U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel’s ruling came in a decision in which she declared RealNetworks’ DVD copying software was illegal. She barred it from being distributed.

"Patel said the RealDVD software violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 that prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology.
....
"'Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action,” Patel wrote (.pdf) in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood.'
...
"'while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,' Patel said. She added, 'fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access' — a simple way of saying it was illegal to hack into the encryption to make a copy."

The DMCA says:

`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Click to expand...

Yet, despite that a judge just ruled that while you have the right to make a fair use copy of a DVD, it is illegal to make or distribute any software or device that would make such a copy possible. In effect, the DMCA has affected the rights it claims it will not change.

Copyright law is messed up in the US. Other countries beware, laws similar to the DMCA are in the works around the world.