Re: OT: mass installation on XBox
On Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:22:46 -0700
"Josh Rehman" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Klaus wrote:
> > That should be interesting!
> > If that thing ever gets put together and M$ thinks it is illegal I
> > love to see a court battle over that in an european court. Who in
> > the hell are those people that think they can tell me I can't
> > construct a marslander out of a ford taurus? Or use a piece of
> > hardware I bought and
> > paid for to what I want it to do? This is ridiculous.
> The key here is to give the lawyers an alternative. If backed into a
> corner, they will do the ridiculous thing in order to protect
> corporate profits. However, I believe that if an alternative is
> provided, then this move would not be taken.
> The issue is not the modification of the hardware, per se, but rather
> the data that can then be pirated after the modification is made.
> Therefore, the one alternative is to limit piracy. In order to do
> that, strict policing of data streams is necessary.
> So that is your choice: give up freedom to modify hardware, or submit
> all data moving in and out of your control to public scrutiny. Since
> the former is both distasteful and fundamentally impossible to
> enforce, the later is inevitable, IMHO.
> Encryption makes subjecting data to scrutiny difficult. So it is
> likely that anti-encryption, anti-obfuscation laws would be passed
> along side any scrutiny laws.
> Pick your poison: inability to modify the container, or have every bit
> of information you generate or consume scrutinized. Personally, I
> think that the former is the lesser of two evils, by far. From an
> enforcement point of view, I think that corporate America would agree.
> (E.g. it is much less expensive to enforce hardware modification laws
> than police all data conduits).
> (I will mention the third option, which is to not worry about
> enforcing data ownership at all. This policy simply will not, and
> cannot fly in this economic, legal or political environment. There is
> a small class of data which can still be sold in this context, namely
> that which the buyer has no incentive to share, or cannot share
> effectively. Three examples that come to mind are data that describes
> the buyer, data that is expensive to share, and data that is
> time-sensitive. (Of course, the seller never has an incentive to
the only problem I have with that whole stuff is that the industry
should play with open cards here. If you buy a piece of hardware and you
are not allowed to tailor it to your needs you don't really own it in
the classical sense of ownership. For example with the xbox they should
then give you a leasing contract and be done with it. This would be a
completely honest solution so that even the dumbest customer out there
can understand what he is in for. Of course that would put a little dent
in the cash flow generated by the product and cause even heavier losses.
So basically the industry gets it both ways.They 'sell' a product that
you don't really own and get the money. I don't care what is in the law
books about this issues - that's how I feel about it.I think it is fraud
and no stinkin' law can change that.