Student Facing 10 Years For Modding Game Consoles

[disorderlyvision]

:eek:

http://cbs13.com/local/video.game.modifying.2.1113623.html


A Southern California college student has been arrested on federal charges that he illegally modified video game consoles to enable the machines to play pirated video games.

The U.S. Attorney's Office says 27-year-old Matthew Crippen was released Monday night after posting $5,000 bond.

The California State University, Fullerton student who lives in Anaheim is accused of modifying Xbox, PlayStation and Wii consoles in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents got a tip from the Entertainment Software Association and searched Crippen's home in May.

He was indicted on two counts by a federal grand jury. Crippen faces 10 years in prison if convicted and is scheduled for arraignment on Aug. 10.

Attempts to reach Crippen for comment were unsuccessful.

[Athan]

Well the government wants you to be smart. Just not TOO smart that you'd go making a name for yourself.

[Kludge]

Lmao.... "illegally modified video game consoles"..... This can't be serious. Where's The Onion link?

[Mini-Me]

As far as I know, the DMCA is pretty much one of the most outrageous laws Clinton ever signed. :mad:

[dannno]

Lmao.... "illegally modified video game consoles"..... This can't be serious. Where's The Onion link?

+1

[powerofreason]

More IP idiocy...

[ClayTrainor]

I used to do this, all the time, this is insane.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I used to do this, all the time, this is insane.

Be careful admitting that or else they may come after you next.

[ClayTrainor]

Be careful admitting that or else they may come after you next.

yea, good point, but i don't even play or own modded game consoles any more, so i should be good :)

It's truly frightening to me that someone can get 10 years in a rape prison for something so harmless and so common.

[emazur]

10 years is pretty outrageous. The article is a little biased too, b/c console modding is more than just about playing games - you can play foreign games and homebrew software (like the great X-box Media Center) as well, both of which I consider to be fully legit uses of the console.

[CaseyJones]

how is illegal to modify something you own

[disorderlyvision]

Be careful admitting that or else they may come after you next.

that why i haven't said......

[Scofield]

You'll do less than 10 years in prison for raping someone or murdering someone in some cases. Yet you mod a video game console, and you get the same, if not more, time?

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

[dannno]

how is illegal to modify something you own

Because our government doesn't understand what property rights are.

Apparently they think everything belongs to corporations and people owe corporations their life.

[powerofreason]

You'll do less than 10 years in prison for raping someone or murdering someone in some cases. Yet you mod a video game console, and you get the same, if not more, time?

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Because the government is essentially made up of a bunch of interest groups and the more money you can donate to congressional campaigns the worse penalties you can get enacted for perceived injustices. A fatal flaw of representative government, as you can see. Representatives help out those who donate the most, the most! The inevitable result: fascism, socialism, or a monstrous mix of both.

[powerofreason]

And oh yea, whats wrong with this nation is that the vast majority of people believe in the various myths of government. If a small minority of people can collapse the government (and they'll do it mostly themselves, we can see that right now), the propaganda will end, people will start to experience the awesomeness of the free market, and minds will change. Thats just my little hope.

[ChaosControl]

Don't even own your own console? Such b.s.

I hate how these damn companies try and say you only buy the rights to play this game or use this software and that you don't actually own it. **** them all.

[satchelmcqueen]

10 years is pretty outrageous. The article is a little biased too, b/c console modding is more than just about playing games - you can play foreign games and homebrew software (like the great X-box Media Center) as well, both of which I consider to be fully legit uses of the console.

yeah, it isnt illegal to buy out of region games. if you own the console i dont see why its such a big deal. companies now days want to sell you something, THEN after they get your money, they claim they still own it and you cannot mess with the item.

[almantimes2]

So the government thinks this guy should go to jail?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/17/xbox-360-laptop-mk2

[TRIGRHAPPY]

10 years is pretty outrageous. The article is a little biased too, b/c console modding is more than just about playing games - you can play foreign games and homebrew software (like the great X-box Media Center) as well, both of which I consider to be fully legit uses of the console.

AMEN. I also put XBMC on many Xboxes for folks. Honestly, none of them lately have any interest in playing video games....... Xbox Media Center running on a modified XBOX is a media center which is vastly superior to anything you can purchase at walmart. Hell, the theme I use (PM3 HD) doesn't even have a tab for games/programs. You literally have to change themes in order to play games from the hard drive.

This is seriously ridiculous. It could be possible to win an exception to the DMCA in the same manner that google is attempting to do with the iPhone. At that point, it would be on the developers to prove that modifying it unrestricts the device and significantly furthers the innovation that is possible. That may be quite possible with original xboxes simply due to how many outstanding and well-sought-after awards that XBMC has won.

[sratiug]

Don't even own your own console? Such b.s.

I hate how these damn companies try and say you only buy the rights to play this game or use this software and that you don't actually own it. **** them all.

+1

[nobody's_hero]

While I agree that 10 years is just plain ludicrous . . .

there's a thing called an EULA (End User Liscence Agreement).

[dannno]

While I agree that 10 years is just plain ludicrous . . .

there's a thing called an EULA (End User Liscence Agreement).

Ya, that's just a contract. Breaking the EULA shouldn't put someone in the position to accept criminal liability. The only thing the EULA should apply to is continued service, they can't retroactively take your property or do anything to you.

For example, if you have an XBox and you have an online subscription to their services and you break the EULA, they should retain the right to revoke your subscription. Beyond that, I really don't see what else they would be able to do. Anything in the contract about not being able to alter your own property should pretty much be thrown out of any court that respects private property rights.

[Kludge]

While I agree that 10 years is just plain ludicrous . . .

there's a thing called an EULA (End User Liscence Agreement).

Oooh, I was reading an interesting case against a company that sells software which violates WoW's EULA ("botting" software) a few months ago. The courts came down pretty hard on them for aiding in violating EULAs.

http://www.mmoglider.com/legal/mar10_2009.pdf

[cindy25]

I think he must have been doing this as a business. can't see them bothering-or even knowing about, home use.

still a stupid law. perfect case for jury nullification

[coyote_sprit]

Consoles are hardware this is owned by you and modchips are hardware that is owned by you. Where does the government factor into that?

[coyote_sprit]

What does the Xbox EULA say btw. Don't know how to access it.

[powerofreason]

EULA's can't do what they claim to be able to do, ethically. There is no such thing as intellectual property. Period.

[andrewh817]

10 years is pretty outrageous. The article is a little biased too, b/c console modding is more than just about playing games - you can play foreign games and homebrew software (like the great X-box Media Center) as well, both of which I consider to be fully legit uses of the console.

What isn't a fully legit use of the console?? You bought and paid for it right?? If it's yours you should be able to do whatever you want.

[andrewh817]

Consoles are hardware this is owned by you and modchips are hardware that is owned by you. Where does the government factor into that?

A better question is where does the money factor into its illegality.

[nobody's_hero]

EULA's can't do what they claim to be able to do, ethically. There is no such thing as intellectual property. Period.

EULA's are contracts. I won't say that they aren't stupid, or that modifications should be handled as a criminal act and not a civil matter, but the hard truth is that people willingly enter into stupid contracts all the time. You can't simply back out of one after you break it because you no longer like the terms.

I'm glad you swiftly settled the argument over intellectual property, though. Period. :rolleyes:

[powerofreason]

EULA's are contracts. I won't say that they aren't stupid, or that modifications should be handled as a criminal act and not a civil matter, but the hard truth is that people willingly enter into stupid contracts all the time. You can't simply back out of one after you break it because you no longer like the terms.

I'm glad you swiftly settled the argument over intellectual property, though. Period. :rolleyes:

Haha. Lets not get into intellectual property. Trust me, you don't want to. As for EULA's and little fine print bullshit "agreements" here is the libertarian view by the brilliant Stephan Kinsella.



The Libertarian View on Fine Print, Shinkwrap, Clickwrap

May 8, 2009 4:27 PM by Stephan Kinsella | Other posts by Stephan Kinsella | Comments (14)

The Techdirt post Court Rejects Online Terms Of Service That Reserve The Right To Change At Any Time spurred me to post a comment about this, collecting some of the thoughts I've had about such matters for a long time.

As I note there, my own theory of contract is presented in my article A Theory of Contracts: Binding Promises, Title Transfer, and Inalienability. And while I of course as a libertarian favor freedom of contract, I am leery of too formulaic or formalistic libertarian positions. Partly this stems from my growing aversion to "armchair" theorizing (see my post The Limits of Armchair Theorizing: The case of Threats). But as an example, and as I noted in the contract article, I disagree with putting so much stock in whether a communication is a "promise" or not (Rothbard, e.g., puts a bit too much emphasis on this, in my view). The question is what the parties meant by their communication--even if the word "promise" is used, this could be intended to effectuate a transfer of title. Another is, say, the over-emphasis on the notion of "incitement" by Rothbard and Block (as discussed in Causation and Aggression). They want to rule out "incitement" as a type of aggression in all cases; to my mind, it's a more context-dependent determination. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

A similar issue arises in the case of contracts. Many libertarians, often with only a crude understanding of the nature of contracts, just assume, Rand-like, some kind of mystical "power" to "bind" oneself by "a contract". They tend also to equate contracts with a written agreement. They thus tend to think that "if it's written in ink, it's binding, no matter what". To my mind, this is too formalistic. A writing is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. Most contracts are not written. They may be oral. They do not even need to be verbal--I hand you a dollar, pointing to the newspaper; you take my dollar and give me the paper. A sale happens, nonverbally (no oral or written communication). And "what is written" is not necessarily dispositive. To my mind, a written agreement is only evidence of what the parties actually agreed to. But it is rebuttable. The written agreement may be very sparse: in which case in the case of disputes, there is no choice but to resort to "gap-fillers," default rules, and the like. Or the agreement may contain ambiguities or even inconsistencies--this may require similar construction methods, or even invalidation of the agreement.

The agreement may not even be intended to be binding, such as in the case of a so-called "simulation" (a contract which, by mutual agreement, does not express the true intent of the parties; see my Civil Law to Common Law Dictionary, entry for "Simulation"; Louisiana Civil Code, arts. 2025-27).

Or there may be fraud or deception which nullifies the whole writing or requires certain provisions not to be enforced.

Given all this, in my view we should not just assume that "whatever is in writing" is part of a binding obligation or enforceable agreement. This bears on the issue of fine print, and so-called shrink-wrap and clickwrap agreements (incidentally the law of various countries on this issue is discussed in my book Online Contract Formation--which is not bedside reading, n.b.). Libertarians seem to just assume, too quickly in my view, that all such fine print should be enforceable. These assumptions seem to be made in the absence of the awareness of the nuances noted above.

So one problem with click-wrap agreements, for example, is that there is (arguably) often no "meeting of the minds" on the fine print--and the vendor is fully aware of this. If the customers routinely just click the "I have read and agree to these terms" box but never do read it, and the vendor knows this, then it's a sort of fiction to assume both sides have actually agreed on these terms. For example supposed buried in fine print for a contract for sale of a $20 software program is the provision, "Buyer agrees to give 50% of his income to Vendor for life." Is this enforceable? Of course not. Why not? Because there was no agreement to this. So the "hidden" terms have to be in some sense reasonable, at the least. (Here, too, "inalienability" concerns may kick in--even if the party is fully aware he is signing away his life income, or his kidney, or life, say, this may not be enforceable for inalienability concerns--see, on this, the contract article noted above, plus my article Inalienability and Punishment.)

I am not saying that clickwrap and fine print is not enforceable--I'm just saying that the libertarian view on property rights and contracts does not require that we formalistically equate "the contract" with "the writing," and it does not require we figure all this out from our armchairs. The libertarian view can recognize that contracts about consensual, intentional transfers of title; that manifesting such consent is a matter of communication; that making determinations about the nature of a contract, or title transfer, is necessarily a fact-specific, context-bound inquiry.

original link: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009923.asp

[acptulsa]

And oh yea, whats wrong with this nation is that the vast majority of people believe in the various myths of government. If a small minority of people can collapse the government (and they'll do it mostly themselves, we can see that right now), the propaganda will end, people will start to experience the awesomeness of the free market, and minds will change. Thats just my little hope.


Because the government is essentially made up of a bunch of interest groups and the more money you can donate to congressional campaigns the worse penalties you can get enacted for perceived injustices. A fatal flaw of representative government, as you can see. Representatives help out those who donate the most, the most! The inevitable result: fascism, socialism, or a monstrous mix of both.

And you don't see any contradiction between the evils that made our government untenable and unbearable and the perceived lack of those same evils without government? Do you really believe government is creating evil, rather than just attracting it? Do you not see that political influence is the freest of all free markets? Do you really not see this in your black and white vision?

Or do you just like the sound of your own spamlike propaganda? I'm not saying government is anything desirable. I'm just saying that to eliminate it is not to eliminate coercion or greed--and to even imply otherwise is laughable on the face of it.

And just to avoid playing the hijacker, this reminds me of the flap over saboutaging your own pollution controls, back when they sapped a car's performance rather distressingly. Is this my property or isn't it? Yes, but the air isn't, and neither are 'our'/'your' 'public' roads. So, what wound up being the rule is, you can kill your catalytic converter but then you can't operate the vehicle on the streets or highways.

Hell, you can't even do that much with this goofy law. Not even in the privacy of your own living room...

[rp4prez]

EULA's can't do what they claim to be able to do, ethically. There is no such thing as intellectual property. Period.

IP things are probably the one of the worst ideas ever. You're the little guy and spend 10s of thousands on protecting your idea just to find out that some giant company takes your idea and runs with it. What are you going to do? Spend tons of money you don't have to sue the giant company to get your royalties? More than likely not because they probably have a staff of lawyers and millions to spend. Tough crap for the little guy who had the idea.

IP is S-T-U-P-I-D!!! :mad:

[acptulsa]

Actually, the idea of intellectual property did quite a lot to build this country. Many things were invented by people who wouldn't have wasted their time if the reward weren't potentially worth the risk of wasted time and effort, just as you point out, rp.

Of course, the special interests have paid the lawmakers a pretty penny to screw that system up since then. Now, as you say, the corporations can pretty much lay claim to what they want, just as in so many areas of our lives today...

We've exchanged a taste of meritocracy for a simple oligarchy. He who has the gold certainly does make the rules these days.

[TastyWheat]

How the hell can they justify sending someone to jail for modifying their private property, or someone else's with permission? Game piracy is another issue, but modifying consoles should be a non-issue.

[acptulsa]

How the hell can they justify sending someone to jail for modifying their private property, or someone else's with permission? Game piracy is another issue, but modifying consoles should be a non-issue.

No doubt. Doesn't even pollute. Are you allowed to smash your game console with a hammer? Or will going off on it after failing for the seventeenth time to clear that one hard level land you in jail as well? 'You modified it, you go to prison'.

What if you get a wild hair and decide to paint it pink? Does that qualify as well?

Invasive, intrusive, and inexcusable. The government wants in your car, in your phone, and even in your Wii. Probably your bedroom, too...

[mczerone]

The government has a very clear pecking order for prosecuting and punishing certain classes of crimes, based on who they see as the "victim":

1. Government: tax evasion, sedition, treason, and secession are the highest crimes, punished fully and with zeal.

2. Politically Connected Corporations, Unions: copyright infringements, digital piracy, anti-trust, land-rights claims, employment laws, striking laws, all these are used selectively against enemies, but done so very loudly to exemplify the outcome.

3. States, The environment, collectivised groups: almost all of the State sponsored cases that receive media coverage have to be at least of this level. "Hate crimes" and sales-tax evasion are common examples.

and finally: 4. The common man/small business: the only people getting less legal sway as victims are the homeless and political dissidents.

[qh4dotcom]

Be careful admitting that or else they may come after you next.

He lives in Canada