| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
DoJ seizes ISOnews site over Xbox mod chip sales | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
The US Department of Justice has seized the ISOnews web site, which was a kind of bible for the discerning software copier, and is turning it into a repository of anti-piracy propaganda. The site's remarkable switch of role stems from the sale of Xbox mod chips, in violation of the DMCA. David Rocci, 22, of Blacksburg, Va, handed over the domain, iSONews.com, in plea bargaining, after pleading guilty to "conspiring to import, market and sell circumvention devices known as modification (or "mod") chips in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". <%=GetPoll(68)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:57:13 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6175 (24.50.19.202) at 2/27/2003 12:33:51 AM |
|
There is a little more information on the US Government's CyberCrime Website.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/rocciPlea.htm I did also read, however, that it could have just been hijacked/hacked because the site is up and running here: http://66.201.243.170/ Who knows. :) |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/27/2003 1:01:06 AM |
|
Naw, the DOJ articles confirm this.
It's kind of interesting... someone at the DOJ is pretty web savvy. The tech geek crowd has held this belief that they are smarter than the law... this semi proves they are wrong. |
| #3 By 7826 (65.205.133.2) at 2/27/2003 11:46:20 AM |
|
#5,
Mod chips does not contain copyrighted code at all. The purpose of mod chip is to bypass the copy-protection mechanism built in every XBox by Microsoft. This is a cleat violation of DMCA not copyright law. As for #3, 99% of people who buy this kind of mod chip are trying to run pirated games on their XBoxes no matter what they say. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/27/2003 1:29:46 PM |
|
#6 - Are you sure? I figured they contained images of the existing BIOS with the authentication stuff wiped out.
I'm not a particularly big fan of the DMCA, but the struggle that I have is as long as people sit out there distributing things like these mod chips, pirated stuff and so forth which is clearly unwanted behavior... it's very difficult to make any arguments for legitimate fair rights. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/27/2003 8:13:42 PM |
|
Last I checked, you don't have the RIGHT to buy ANYTHING.
You are given the choice of buying something under the terms and conditions of the individual or company selling the item. If you do not agree to the conditions, the individual or company does not have to allow you to purchase the product. Conversely, the company or individual doing the selling does not have the right to force you to buy the product. That's the way capitalism works. It's about contracts and consent. If you don't like it, don't agree to the terms of the deal, and don't purchase the product. It has absolutely nothing to do with liberty, or freedom, or any of that baloney that many people insist this kind of thing infringes on. If you agree to a license that states that you cannot modify the product you purchase, and you modify the product you purchase, you are in violation of the agreement and can be tried in a court of law. Plain and simple. The only way this isn't true is if the terms of the contract violate the constitution in some way... because the only body that can enforce the terms of the contract is the government, and the government cannot violate the Constitution. This guy wasn't modifying Xboxen, he was selling chips that allows other people to modify their Xboxen. I don't subscribe to the notion that if you sell a gun that is eventually used in a murder that you're guilty of that murder, and so I don't subscribe to the notion that if you sell mod chips you're guilty of breaking an agreement you never entered. So, imho, this guy should be in the clear... but all those people who bought mod chips from him aren't. |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/27/2003 11:28:23 PM |
|
#9 "he was sellign XBOX mod chips which contained copyrighted material for which he did not have a license to redistribute."
I was unaware of that. That is clearly illegal... unless, of course, he reverse engineered the technology. (Which I doubt he did.) "Also, if the primary and overwhelming purpose of these mod chips was to allow users to play pirated discs then he could be guilty of infringement as well" Sorry, I don't buy into that argument. He would be no more guilty of a violation of the license agreement than the makers of CD burning drives are of pirating music and software. You cannot assume the use of an item, no matter how obvious it may appear to be. |
| #7 By 931 (67.35.50.18) at 2/28/2003 2:23:50 AM |
|
[quote]
Sorry, I don't buy into that argument. He would be no more guilty of a violation of the license agreement than the makers of CD burning drives are of pirating music and software. You cannot assume the use of an item, no matter how obvious it may appear to be. [/quote] Agreed... DAVE has lost on this basis time and time again. :) |
| #8 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/28/2003 11:32:12 AM |
|
#12 - "Napster lost their legal case for this very reason."
Yes, it is true that Napster lost their case for this reason, but that does not mean that the principle behind why they lost the case is valid. I believe it to be invalid, and most European courts have so far agreed with me. (Which is why KaZaA has not yet been shut down.) I think that the people behind Napster were knowingly helping to pirate music, and that what they did was wrong and immoral, but it should not be against the law because of the danger of abuse of that law. In much the same way that it should not be against the law to scream racist slurs at people, even though it repugnant to do so, because to protect all free speech you must also protect the ugliest examples of that speech. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/28/2003 12:47:11 PM |
|
"In the same way, this website was providing something to people who were knowingly going to break their licenses with the mod chip."
Guns don't kill people, people with mod chips kill people? Come on. Criminal facilitation should be applied a bit more judiciously--are you saying Smith & Wessons' site is facilitating murder? "was sellign XBOX mod chips which contained copyrighted material for which he did not have a license to redistribute" No where has this been stated--most of the mod tech I've seen has NOT "contained" copyrighted technology at all. It is all reverse engineering circumvention. I don't even understand why you think they would need to contain copyrighted material, nevermind how they would get a hold of it. What he is doing that is illegal is distributing a tool that can be used to modify a device which could possibly make it possible to abuse someone's copyright's. This is a pure DCMA charge. Whether or not he is doing something criminal (which I think it's important to point out that in 95% of the world besides the US IS perfectly legal) doesn't matter according to the DCMA--simply publishing or distributing a technique is a violation of the DCMA. I'm not defending the guy by any means--I'm just trying to clear that up. As for using the web sites, everyone should be against this. They are seizing a person's property for modding? These aren't drug charges. If you are a B&E felon, the cops don't even take your car, house, etc... WHy can they take your domain? Anyway, even if you don't agree with that, they are not only seizing the domain--okay, seize it, and then sell it, right? Use the proceeds to fund the investigation of similar crimes?--No, they are USING the criminal's former property to point to a government site where the policies are to acquire all personal information and distribute it to whatever authorities should be informed of that visitor's acts. Do I think they are really concerned about building files on these people and prosecuting them? No, but I don't think they should have the right to do so--which they appear to be assuming that they do. Whether or not they are using it or abusing it, the DOJ now has a new technique to acquire information on people which it believes is violating the law when the persons (who may or may not be commiting crimes) are unaware of the gov'ts ability to legally acquire evidence on them. |
| #10 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/28/2003 2:18:32 PM |
|
#14 - "RMD, if a high school kid got a gun and shot kids at his school, and then they find out that he got the gun from some guy who knew that the kid was in a state of mind to do something and provided the gun to the kid knowing what the outcome would be, wouldn't he be charged with accessory to murder?"
I doubt that he would be charged with accessory to murder, but if he was, that is still not the same as charing him with murder. There is a specific law that covers being an accessory to murder. There is no law that covers being an accessory to violating a license agreement. They arrested this guy not for being an accessory, but for actually violating the license agreement. The equivalent in our analogy would be if the guy who gave the kid the gun was then charged not with being an accessory to murder, but instead for being the actual murderer. This is flawed reasoning. It is this same flawed reasoning that has allowed bartenders to be prosecuted for homicide when one of their patrons drinks and drives. It is rediculous, and an abuse of power. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/28/2003 5:50:29 PM |
|
Kevin, this isn't really related to TIA... that's still a dark DARPA project with a lot of opposition. Seizing and using domains and poitning them at DOJ or other sites is something I'd bet Ashcroft would claim they always had the right to do.
As for my silliness about S&W, I was just joking because this isn't an acessory or aiding charge--nor is it a copyright infringement charge--this is a DCMA charge. I was just trying to assert that point. No copyright has been violated by his actions--it is a DCMA violation for distributing a circumvention technique. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/1/2003 4:19:13 AM |
| If your car were a means for using digital content (NO2 isn't digital content), then circumventing its digital content protection mechanisms would be a DMCA violation. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 307 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:57:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
