Print

[spook727]

QUOTE(GandyMan @ Aug 3 2007, 04:06 AM)

I do not understand what you mean. I was simple pointing out one point of the article , "There are many legitimate uses for these devices beyond "subverting copyright protections" I mentioned previously the use of XBMC" and that to me that is still subverting copyright protections. Of course I do not like this law. There are tons of laws I do not like. But until it is changed if you break it you have to pay. I love my XBMC and use it almost everyday. I understand the point of the article and like it. I just wanted to say that I think it is a valid point made by Julie L. Meyers that the purpose of all the devices not BIOS is to subvert copyright protection. Having spent 20+ years and counting in the U.S. military and having spent over half overseas are personal freedoms are well above others.

perhaps "legitimate uses" is badly worded as the would denote that it is legal.  In the current definition of the law, in order to run homebrew code, you must first circumvent the protection built into the systems.  Perhaps "non-piracy uses" is more apt?

The question is, is it right to say that circumventing the protections in the hardware should be considered illegal?  Should we be told by the software and media companies what we can and cannot do?  An example would be region-free dvd players.  Should we be told by movie companies that what the English or Japanese audiences watch should not be watched by Americans?  By watching an imported movie, you are circumventing the protection on the disc.

If we argue that the mere act of circumventing the protection is not illegal, then we need to be very specific about who has actually committed a crime.

While nobody will disagree that most modchips are used for piracy, I would venture to say that the percentage of "non-piracy" uses are not as low as you would think.  The proof is in the number of developers out there who have contributed to XBMC and the XBox scene in general.  Add to that percentage of people who use the chips to enable imports (which Sony has sought to make illegal) and it's inaccurate to say that "all" modchips are used for piracy (I know that's not what the statement says but we know the meaning behind it).

As to our personal freedoms are well above others, that argument has never worked for me.  My parents have never accepted that argument either... "a C is better than other people in the class!".  The reason our personal liberties are above others is because there were diligent individuals or groups that helped get us here.  We need to continue in that spirit.

[theperfekt001]

QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Aug 2 2007, 01:29 PM)

The government should be in place to act in the best interests of the American people. Instead our laws work to criminalize anyone and everyone and designed not in the best interests of the American people but in the best interests of politicians and big businesses.
...
Rather than creating an environment with the ideals of the American dream, where a humble garage inventor can compete in an open market and build his business from the ground up we've started criminalizing them for the threats they pose to the larger established corporations.

Well said

[djsnake]

Awesome post TS! I tried to explain more or less the same thing, although far less eloquently, to some sheep on another board and got nothing but flames. Sadly, it seems most people are content with the government whittling away at their freedoms.

The real question now should be how do we go about wrestling control of the government back from the corporations. I'd love to see it start with a complete reworking of the DMCA but how do we accomplish that? As someone else said the EFF defends a lot of people in these cases but do they have what it takes to change a law backed by multi-billion dollar corporations?

[BoberFett]

A-fucking-men. Well thought out article, my thanks to the author.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(GandyMan @ Aug 2 2007, 10:24 PM)

I would say I am not aware of the Automobile Enthusiasts being in trouble do to the gas not being taxed. I was under the understanding it was because their fuel has not been approved for use on the road. Basically having to do with smog and all that stuff. I could be wrong but with the way things are reported now days it is really hard to get to the truth. It is funny once it hits the front page of a web site it is truth.

There are in trouble for not paying gas tax. Biodiesel is cleaner than regular gas.
http://www.makezine....for_altern.html

There is no precedence for this. I would like to see a group of people argue this all the way to the Supreme Court. It's a shame Mr. Rogers isn't with us anymore. He was one of the main reasons VCRs were not outlawed when they came to existence. His argument was it will allow families to watch shows they would have missed together. If people start pulling on the family string, there may be a case.
"We can stream family videos encoded in any format via XBMC."
"My children scratch the disks, and we can no longer play together."
"I was using Linux to act as a proxy/web filter for my children regardless of what computer they were on. My Linux Xbox filtered the content."
etc.

[twistedsymphony]

QUOTE(cory1492 @ Aug 4 2007, 06:37 AM)

Great article/statement/take/editorial; though there is one thing you did not touch on at all and it leaves me rather surprised.

Apparently, these days when we pay hundreds for a console we do not own it, only a license to use it (one which we cannot read without opening the box and looking at the book, and thus have no opportunity to agree/disagree with before purchase). The consoles may not be "copy protected" but they do have security which must be circumvented to enable homebrew use (so it is included in the license terms). As such, the console itself is being considered the violated Intellectual Property.

This is a common misconception and it is flat out not true... plain and simple.

you can not license or lease the use of a device or service without a contract and you cannot legally enter a contract unless you are above the age of 18 or have your parent/guardian agree to it for you. If the console was actually being leased you would not be able to "buy" one without being over the age of 18 and signing a contract. I don't remember ever having done that, do you?

When you buy an Xbox you OWN that Xbox you're not leasing it or licensing it or any weird legal trickery... you OWN IT.

The only thing you can license or have a lease over is software and services such as Xbox live where  you agree to a EULA (end users license agreement). Technically the EULA is completely void for anyone under the age of 18 who purchased and opened the software themselves because they're not legally able to agree to anything.

... that still doesn't change the fact that breaking copy protection is illegal for Americans of all ages.

FWIW: it's also illegal to not make EULAs available free of charge before the purchase of software. this came after a lawsuit with MS a few years back where someone tried to sell an unopened copy of MS office, got sued by MS, took it to court instead of settling and won since he couldn't have read the contract without having opened the software