Government Drops Xbox Modding Trial
from the bye-bye dept
Following yesterday's berating at the hands of Judge Philip Gutierrez, the government has decided to drop the charges completely against Matthew Crippen for modding Xboxes. Last night, they had indicated they were going to push forward with a trial, but today they obviously thought better of it. The government is trying to cover up the fact that this case looked bad for them all around by claiming the reason for the dismissal was a more specific screw-up: having the first witness introduce new evidence (a claim that Crippen had put a "pirated" game onto a modded Xbox -- something he hadn't mentioned before, and claims he just recalled it days before the trial started (uh huh...)). Of course, this still leaves some big issues left unsettled -- and the idea that you can get jail time for modifying a product you legally purchased remains tremendously problematic.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, dmca, xbox
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously
If they proceed and lose, a pattern of 'user rights'--concerning electronics--is established.
Just look at what happened with cars and telephones!
Cars, to begin with, came with a locked hood and only the dealer could service the engine. I;m pretty sure they beat you up or something if you bypassed this lock.
It used to be in the contract from AT&T that you could not OWN a phone, only lease it from AT&T. I'm pretty sure they were allowed to lobotomize you (under contract, of course) if you understood too much about how your leased phone worked...
Such a pattern would be a terrible thing "patrons" of the various legislators, law makers, attorneys general, etc. Or like Kenny Rogers said "you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to to walk away..."
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obviously
> and self incrimination allowing them to get some
> asinine foothold on the whole 'precedence' angle.
A dsitrict court conviction holds almost no precedential value whatsoever. Precedent is set only when a conviction is appealed and an opinion is issued by the appellate court.
Since your example is someone who has "folded instantly", they're not likely to appeal their case and no precedent will be set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modding
An entire sports empire is based upon modding that which you legally purchased.
How much of the PC industry is based upon "modding"???? Isn't upgrading to the newest NVIDIA card Modding? How about putting in a bigger hard drive? How about buying a PC/laptop with a sticker on it and marketing drivel about "ready for the next O/S that MS puts out!". Isn't that modding? Oh wait - that would be "contributory" modding - trying to convince us to make the change so we are guilty.
Every day, with every one of these lawsuits - Shakespear's quote is more relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modding
Doesn't make it right, but I do see where they are coming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its Your Property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a win
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's how dumb IP can become
So apparently I'm a pirate woodworker. Somebody better taser me and put the cuffs on me before I do any more damage to the economy.
The more the legal system legitimizes control over the end use of products, the more ridiculous and ugly the can of worms will become. For example, why couldn't a steel company dictate what can and can't be made with the metal it sells? What really hits me is the hypocrisy of the businesses world, on one hand being against Big Government while on the other hand wanting it to impose contrived restrictions on the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil vs Criminal
In general, as I see it, protections for IP do not belong in the criminal code. As anyone in business should know, corporations and other institutions hold the vast majority of enforceable IP rights, not individuals. This is to be expected as corporations are in the best position to generate revenue from the IP. Indivduals routinely assign their own interests in IP to corporations in furtherance of this system.
Corporations and other institutions have the resources to enforce IP rights, through civil judicial action. Few individuals who create IP have such resources. And even fewer actively pursue IP enforcement as individuals.
By crimalising IP infringment, I think we are essentially giving corporations the addtional power of criminal prosecution. Corporations are likely to have much more influence over federal prosecutors than individuals do, and as such, it is questionalble whether criminalising IP infringment stands to benefit individuals to any appreciable degree. It goes without saying that most criminal law is directly aimed at protecting persons and their property. However IP infringment as criminal law is effectively aimed at protecting the interests of legally created entities, not persons.
The 12-year old DMCA and its criminal anti-circumvention provisions, still yet to be the subject of a single judicial opinion, is probably not the law you all should be focussing on. We already have the US LOC listing exceptions to allow tinkering for items such as the iPhone. In time, the list of exceptions may envelope the already narrow rule.
As I see it, the real issue to pay attention to is the movement to make IP infringment a criminal offence in very general terms, e.g. ACTA. This is an effort, perhaps lacking enough forethought, to define IP infringment as criminal activity.
Maybe I'm just set in my ways but the notion of IP infringment as "crime", to be handled by prosecutors, and to be sold to the public as something to fear with the threat of imprisonment, just does not sit well with me. Federal prosecutors are not IP lawyers. (I am not suggesting IP lawyers are angels, but there is a significant difference between the two.) I think this botched trial is evidence of that difference.
Most people, including most lawyers, don't understand that much about the inner workings of IP law. And for good reason. It can be quite complex. Making IP infringment a "crime" oversimplifies IP law to the legal standards of the criminal code. And it puts IP law into the hands of law enforcement, prosecutors, who, in their reckless desire for conviction, as this Crippen affair has shown, may fail to meet even the lowest of standards of professional conduct.
Microsoft's own lawyers and their outside counsel could no doubt have done a better job than this prosecutor did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]