bit-gamer.net

Microsoft will not apologise for Xbox bans

Microsoft will not apologise for Xbox bans

Microsoft has banned around one million users from Xbox Live in a counter-piracy strike recently.

Microsoft has today issued a statement saying that it is unapologetic for banning around one million users from Xbox Live and that the affected users represent only a small percentage of Xbox 360 users.

The bans occurred earlier this week as part of a counter-piracy strike on Microsoft's behalf that targets players running pirated games via the MAC address, meaning that the user will have to buy a new Xbox 360 in order to regain access to Xbox Live. Users can still recover their gamer profiles, but they need to do it on a new Xbox 360.

"If it's clear someone is downloading pirated copies or have modified their Xbox in some way that will allow them to download games that they haven't purchased legitimately and yes we lock that account down and we're unapologetic about that," Microsoft's European Xbox head Chris Lewis said.

Microsoft has refused to issue an exact figure of how many gamers were banned from Xbox Live, but reports speculate that the figure is around one million.

The mass ban itself was likely timed around the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and focused on users playing the game before it was officially released.

Microsoft gave plenty of warning before the ban, saying that users should all be aware that piracy is illegal and should expect to be punished.

"All consumers should know that piracy is illegal, and that modifying their Xbox 360 console to play pirated discs, violates the Xbox Live terms of use, will void their warranty and result in a ban from Xbox Live."

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

129 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
skunkmunkey 13th November 2009, 12:28 Quote
As much as I hate it when companies do this sort of thing, it does seem pretty fair. After all they are not bricking the console completely.
AngusW 13th November 2009, 12:30 Quote
Why should they? You'd have to be a complete tool to use a modded xbox online..
Abhorsen 13th November 2009, 12:32 Quote
I'm glad they've banned people. Piracy harm's the games industry significantly. Quite frankly, it serves them right.
bogie170 13th November 2009, 12:33 Quote
I hope all those Xbox gamers go out and buy a PC or PS3 instead!
do_it_anyway 13th November 2009, 12:36 Quote
A tool yes, but sadly its parents that often get a console "modified" for their kids, then the kids want to play with their mates and go online and get caught.
Personally, with things like pirating and cheating being blamed for the current PC gaming market, I have a dislike for people who pirate games. And I think this a smart move.
Nobody complains if youu had your console chipped and then the manufacturer wouldn't honour the warranty. Now if you have your machine modded, you can't play on the manufacturers servers. Quite right
Hugo 13th November 2009, 12:56 Quote
As long as no-one who has bought a modded console second hand and unaware it had been messed with has been banned (could it be that hard to check if a Live account has actually played a pirated game?) then MS needs to make no apologies. Piracy, whether you justify it to yourself or not, should be actively discouraged.
cjoyce1980 13th November 2009, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
I hope all those Xbox gamers go out and buy a PC or PS3 instead!

as the cost of blu-ray disc and writers becomes cheaper i expect to see this story again soon, but it will be sony banning users from play copied games.

nintendo would do it with the wii, if the console had an always online approach like the 360 and ps3
DeathAwaitsU 13th November 2009, 13:06 Quote
There own dumb fault, you dont play a game online that isn't officially released ANYWHERE. My 360 is modded, i'm not banned, but then again i'm not stupid enough to play a game before release, i buy my games but i do back them up and only play the back-ups (my sons a fan of chewing discs right now :/) and i'm still online.
Darv 13th November 2009, 13:09 Quote
They have also said that any users who have been banned are still able to buy a new unchipped Xbox and transfer over their profile to the new one. You can't really complain at that, they are giving pirates the choice to 'mend their ways' so to put it.
Krazeh 13th November 2009, 13:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhorsen
I'm glad they've banned people. Piracy harm's the games industry significantly.

That's debatable at best, you can find just as much "evidence" that piracy has very little impact as you can "evidence" that it's destroying the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
I hope all those Xbox gamers go out and buy a PC or PS3 instead!

I wouldn't be suprised if it pushed people away from the 360 and onto other formats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HugoB
As long as no-one who has bought a modded console second hand and unaware it had been messed with has been banned (could it be that hard to check if a Live account has actually played a pirated game?) then MS needs to make no apologies. Piracy, whether you justify it to yourself or not, should be actively discouraged.

Problem is that, afaik, Microsoft aren't targeting their bans solely at people who have played pirated games, they're targeting everyone who's modded their 360 so are catching people who've done it so they can play backup copies of games they've legitimately bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathAwaitsU
There own dumb fault, you dont play a game online that isn't officially released ANYWHERE. My 360 is modded, i'm not banned, but then again i'm not stupid enough to play a game before release, i buy my games but i do back them up and only play the back-ups (my sons a fan of chewing discs right now :/) and i'm still online.

Don't be too suprised if that doesn't remain the case. From the looks of reports on several 360 orientated forums people who've never played anything other than backups of their own games have been caught in the ban wave and had their 360 banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
but reports speculate that the figure is around one million.

All the reports seem to be based on an entirely unverified post on a 360 forum by someone claiming to be a MS employee who worked in the department responsible for detecting and banning modded 360s. Don't think there's any reliable source for the number of consoles that have actually been banned.
scawp 13th November 2009, 13:17 Quote
"The mass ban itself was likely timed around the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and focused on users playing the game before it was officially released."

Will this also ban people who got a legitimate copy before the release date? http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/11/09/modern-warfare-2-street-date-broken/

seems a bit harsh if so...
rollo 13th November 2009, 13:25 Quote
Good on Microsoft piracy has to stop, last I checked isn't it technically still illigal to back up games.
I have no sympothy for the people banned. Ps3 plays all disks be it copies or otherwise.

First decent thing Microsoft has done in years.

Not agaist people who back up stuff they buy, totally agaist those that download every major release. (pc or 360) the excuses are irelivent and most of them nonesence
Comet 13th November 2009, 13:29 Quote
This is a disproportional response. If you're a legit customer with a modded XBOX you may get the axe. . IT would make more sense a game based ban. If the system detects a pirated version of the game you wouldn't be able to play it online
lp1988 13th November 2009, 13:30 Quote
If the number is around 1 million, my guess is that there are going to be about a million 360's on sale on ebay the next few months, for a real "bargain"
flibblesan 13th November 2009, 13:41 Quote
People have been caught by playing games before release date and also playing copied games with old or incorrect wave data. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the people that got caught are people that bought a pre-modded Xbox360 from something like a computer fair or Loot.

Having a modded Xbox360 does not cause you to get banned. Playing games early and playing bad backups WILL get you banned.
feedayeen 13th November 2009, 13:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp1988
If the number is around 1 million, my guess is that there are going to be about a million 360's on sale on ebay the next few months, for a real "bargain"

Which might be quite intresting considering Xmas is coming up. Beginning next week a hundred million parents will begin Xmas shopping. When the stores are cleaned out, the $50 xbox on eBay is going to look like the perfect gift.
thEcat 13th November 2009, 13:49 Quote
Banning the box is a soft option, some may say a cynical attempt at boosting Xmas sales. Why not ban the account ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
That's debatable at best, you can find just as much "evidence" that piracy has very little impact as you can "evidence" that it's destroying the industry.

The people in power have used piracy to justify several controversial decisions. So long as piracy exists as an excuse it IS hurting gaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet
This is a disproportional response. If you're a legit customer with a modded XBOX you may get the axe. . IT would make more sense a game based ban. If the system detects a pirated version of the game you wouldn't be able to play it online

Welcome to the socialist state of console gaming. Keep the flag flying guys.
mi1ez 13th November 2009, 14:10 Quote
I'm largely in favour of this move, so long as it was originally stated in some sort of EULA. I feel sorry for anyone who bought a second hand chipped console though.

Gutted!
Woodspoon 13th November 2009, 14:14 Quote
And thats what happens if your stupid enough to play pirated games online before the release date.
They deserve to be banned just for being dumb enough to do that.
TreeDude 13th November 2009, 14:33 Quote
While I agree that piracy does not always equal hurt sales, I also believe it hurts the gaming industry more than the movie or music industry simply because games are more expensive and have less longevity.

MS has every right to do this. They are protecting their assets. Would everyone rather they take a card out of the RIAA playbook and star a suing spree?
docodine 13th November 2009, 14:34 Quote
I would buy a $50 Xbox, Live or no Live, so thank you MS.
Denis_iii 13th November 2009, 14:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet
This is a disproportional response. If you're a legit customer with a modded XBOX you may get the axe. . IT would make more sense a game based ban. If the system detects a pirated version of the game you wouldn't be able to play it online
+1
pizan 13th November 2009, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet
This is a disproportional response. If you're a legit customer with a modded XBOX you may get the axe. . IT would make more sense a game based ban. If the system detects a pirated version of the game you wouldn't be able to play it online
Because they banned the people playing a game that wasn't released yet? Well this article doesn't say it, but I read somewhere that they banned all the people caught playing MW2 before it was released.
El Rando 13th November 2009, 15:22 Quote
Respect for Microsoft.
AshT 13th November 2009, 15:26 Quote
Fair play to MS.
vampalan 13th November 2009, 15:36 Quote
I thought people already got banned from XBox Live for playing pirated games.
And COD:MW2 being played before the release date with a real copy, thats not the users fault really, its the sellers breaking their sell dates.
It's unfortunate for the people whom bought a second hand one to find their Xbox only works in offline mode, they would need to check before they hand over money. From the respones I see here, there's no one crying that they have been banned from XBox Live, or too ashamed that they have. LoL. I dont own an XBox (it doesnt do BluRay does it?), I do have a PS3 media player, and sometimes it plays SF4 or GH:Metalica.
shigllgetcha 13th November 2009, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
I hope all those Xbox gamers go out and buy a PC or PS3 instead!

these people arent really ms customers anyway so i dont think ms care what they buy. they did buy the 360 originally but stole everything else and the margins on consoles are thin anyway

i think ms were damn right, if there is a way to get rid of pirates, do it. its a shame they cant disable the 360 fully

if you mod your 360 to use pirate games just stay off live seems a simple way round it, guess some ppl are too gready
shigllgetcha 13th November 2009, 16:25 Quote
heres a story from yesterday on the bbc news webiste
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002900/10002915.stm
poor me i modified my xbox to use pirated games and now ms wont let me play the game i robed on thier online system, boo hoo

i dont feel in the least sorry of any of these people, the game industry has basically one avenue for revenue, games sales, other industrys, music, film have other ways to make money, concerts radio royalties, dvd sales tv showings rentals
War-Rasta 13th November 2009, 16:36 Quote
I have mixed thoughts about the banning. In one hand MS is indeed losing money from people with modded boxes since they don't buy games, but in the other hand if you ban me from Live for having a modded console then you're cutting me from giving you money in the only way you can get it from me (paying for the Live service itself and me buying stuff on it). While my point there is true, I also understand that if they don't do something to discourage pirates then everybody would do it and they would have a bigger problem; plus right now if you get banned you need to go out and buy a second console from MS (or third if you got the RROD with a previous one) which in turn gives MS some money back.

Whichever the case is, I do understand however that MS have all the right to ban any and all consoles they can detect that have been modded and gamers should not feel abused by this. As long as they send you to jail just for modding the console (pirating games is another issue) then it's all fine with me. The same thing goes for people who bought second hand consoles that were modded/banned beforehand; it's a shame but it's not MS's fault so they shouldn't be responsible for making up for it.
skunkmunkey 13th November 2009, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
heres a story from yesterday on the bbc news webiste
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002900/10002915.stm
poor me i modified my xbox to use pirated games and now ms wont let me play the game i robed on thier online system, boo hoo

i dont feel in the least sorry of any of these people, the game industry has basically one avenue for revenue, games sales, other industrys, music, film have other ways to make money, concerts radio royalties, dvd sales tv showings rentals

Lol, what a tit... Should have posted his adress so microsoft could go round his house and kick his ass too.
DarkLord7854 13th November 2009, 16:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by scawp
"The mass ban itself was likely timed around the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and focused on users playing the game before it was officially released."

Will this also ban people who got a legitimate copy before the release date? http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/11/09/modern-warfare-2-street-date-broken/

seems a bit harsh if so...

I believe they had said that people who got the game early legitimately just got an error message saying they couldn't play until the 11th or w/e the release date was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet
This is a disproportional response. If you're a legit customer with a modded XBOX you may get the axe. . IT would make more sense a game based ban. If the system detects a pirated version of the game you wouldn't be able to play it online

How is it disproportional? You violate the terms which you agreed to abide by when signing up, you broke them willingly and then cry because you got the consequences that were clearly stated would come should you break these terms? Lol.. Take responsibility for your actions and quite whining like a pussy that you have to suffer consequences.

(you meaning generally btw.. not directly "you")
armerdan 13th November 2009, 17:00 Quote
I don't have any opinion about weather or not it's good or bad that Micro$oft banned thee users deemed to be pirates, I'm SURE that some of them were and that some probably were not doing anything wrong. I agree that there will be about 100,000 360s on e-Bay for "a steal" that mysteriously don't work with X-box Live.

On the other hand, we're talking about |-|@><0|2$ here so lets be realistic shall we, it'll take them about 2 days to write a piece of code that will change the MAC address on the 360s to anything they want it to be. If they can't figure that out they'll get a cheap Linksys WRT-54G router and set up NAT / port forwarding where all traffic is sent through this router where it will appear as though that's where it originated but really it's getting passed from the 360 and the return traffic will get forwarded to the 360. I'm not a hacker but I could probably figure it out. I'll bet there will be clear instructions on the forums within a week.
K.I.T.T. 13th November 2009, 17:07 Quote
They can't be banning by MAC because you can manually chnage the MAC of an Xbox IIRC, either way....they've got an undetectable firmware for Lite-On drives on its way.

I think if they really want to deter people they'd operate the same policy they did for modded original xboxes, they got bricked (the console powered on and just say flashing green and organge) and the xbox live account banned....now that'd deter people, and did...until the undetectable mod chips came through...
Ross1 13th November 2009, 17:10 Quote
Taking the console off live is one thing, and seems a legitimate action, but corrupting hard drives, removing media center extender support, removing ability to install games... thats different, and seems inappropriate.

if apple bricked all jailbroken iphones so they could never go on the internet again, what would people think about that?
slugbug 13th November 2009, 17:36 Quote
I hear they can even ban you for using an unofficial hard drive. To me that sound like total BS considering that Sony allows users to upgrade their hard drive if they so desire. I think MS needs to step back and do away with their overpriced proprietary crap and use a standard 2.5" laptop drive like Sony does.
rollo 13th November 2009, 17:49 Quote
ross1 alot of people would say its what you get when you do things apple doesnt want you to do

and 2 days later it would be unbricked

welcome to iphone crackfest
DarkLord7854 13th November 2009, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugbug
I hear they can even ban you for using an unofficial hard drive. To me that sound like total BS considering that Sony allows users to upgrade their hard drive if they so desire. I think MS needs to step back and do away with their overpriced proprietary crap and use a standard 2.5" laptop drive like Sony does.

They do, it's just encased in the little box thing they made for it.
NuTech 13th November 2009, 17:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross1
Taking the console off live is one thing, and seems a legitimate action, but corrupting hard drives, removing media center extender support, removing ability to install games... thats different, and seems inappropriate.

if apple bricked all jailbroken iphones so they could never go on the internet again, what would people think about that?
Terrible analogy.

There are two things to note about modified Xbox 360 consoles. Firstly they only do one thing and one thing only, that's play pirated games (or 'backups'), there is no 'home brew' scene yet (e.g. XBMC) or Linux support or imported games functionality. Secondly, modding an xbox360 is not a simple task (although not incredibly difficult either), it's not a disk swap or just putting a special cartridge in. So there is no excuse for people to say "Oh I just wanted to try it out once". You deliberately did it and you spent time doing it.

As for your iPhone analogy, it just doesn't fly. When you buy an iPhone, Apple makes money. If you never used the App store, Apple probably wouldn't care (yes they would like you to, but it isn't vital), they already have your money.

The Xbox 360 is a loss leader, Microsoft do not (and probably never will) make a profit on the console sales. If it wasn't for people buying retail games, the Xbox and Playstation would not exist (I'm excluding the Wii because it's last gen hardware, cheap to manufacture and has made a profit since launch).

If Microsoft is 100% sure the affected consoles have been modified to play pirated games (which I'm sure they are), and the owners are stupid enough to connect to Xbox Live with them, then they deserve worse IMO. They should be grateful that Microsoft didn't completely brick their consoles.
AshT 13th November 2009, 18:07 Quote
Well said NuTech, it's easy to forget most consoles if not all are sold at a loss.

Incidentally there is a fix already to fix the 360 banned consoles ...

I would assume after all the news headlines that MS won't let the fix last long or it'll suffer major humiliation.
Star*Dagger 13th November 2009, 18:37 Quote
Maybe we can find the command to brick them all! Sent by a PC Gamer, lol.
Star*Dagger 13th November 2009, 18:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLord7854


How is it disproportional? You violate the terms which you agreed to abide by when signing up, you broke them willingly and then cry because you got the consequences that were clearly stated would come should you break these terms? Lol.. Take responsibility for your actions and quite whining like a pussy that you have to suffer consequences.

(you meaning generally btw.. not directly "you")

You can construct your sentence like this "If one violates the terms he agreed to...." "If one breaks them willing..."

Enjoy,
S¤D
Evildead666 13th November 2009, 18:42 Quote
And it'll be a back and forth, costing MS a large amount of cash in the process....
If BluRay can be cracked a mere 24Hrs after a "new unbreakable key" gets puts out.....then MS also have no chance with their Xbox.
Apple has been 'closed source' for ages, and it can be installed onto other than MAC's, and their iPhone is constantly being jailbroken....

People may be inclined to go PS3 Slim, or just back to PC.
Whichever, its bad news for MS.

Oh and SKUNKMONKEY, read the quote carefully, and imageine quotes afetr the link, and just afetr the "boohoo"
He was taking the piss, so you are off a bit here...

skunkmunkey 2 hours ago
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigllgetcha
heres a story from yesterday on the bbc news webiste
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002900/10002915.stm
poor me i modified my xbox to use pirated games and now ms wont let me play the game i robed on thier online system, boo hoo

i dont feel in the least sorry of any of these people, the game industry has basically one avenue for revenue, games sales, other industrys, music, film have other ways to make money, concerts radio royalties, dvd sales tv showings rentals

Lol, what a tit... Should have posted his adress so microsoft could go round his house and kick his ass too.
Evildead666 13th November 2009, 18:43 Quote
And now i'm a **** for not looking AT the link before commenting.....feck and arse.
Apologies Skunkmonkey....#slaps one face#
TurtlePerson2 13th November 2009, 18:47 Quote
They had 8 million XBox Live subscribers in 2007. 1 million doesn't seem like that small of a percentage and that's only the number of people playing pirated games online. I didn't realize that console piracy had become this bad, but I guess it's to be expected. If publishers just stop releasing PC games then pirates are just going to move to a different platform.
NuTech 13th November 2009, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtlePerson2
They had 8 million XBox Live subscribers in 2007. 1 million doesn't seem like that small of a percentage and that's only the number of people playing pirated games online. I didn't realize that console piracy had become this bad, but I guess it's to be expected. If publishers just stop releasing PC games then pirates are just going to move to a different platform.
The 8 million in 2007 is Gold subscribers. You're confusing banned consoles with Xbox Live gold subscriptions. I'm pretty sure a lot (maybe even the majority) of the banned consoles were silver account holders.
dyzophoria 13th November 2009, 18:54 Quote
i dont see anything wrong with it, its written in their EULA isnt it not? , you are only banned for xbox live, its not like you bricked your console imho, if you want to play the game you downloaded before its actual release, you can still do so even if your account is banned.
DarkLord7854 13th November 2009, 19:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
You can construct your sentence like this "If one violates the terms he agreed to...." "If one breaks them willing..."

Enjoy,
S¤D

Either way works, it was just so the person doesn't feel like I'm targeting them as some people sometimes do even though it's plainly obvious the "you" isn't specifically targeting them ;)
tank_rider 13th November 2009, 19:26 Quote
Can anyone else all of a sudden see a lot of 360s coming up on ebay?
DarkLord7854 13th November 2009, 19:40 Quote
They're all over craigslist too
schwabman 13th November 2009, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
That's debatable at best, you can find just as much "evidence" that piracy has very little impact as you can "evidence" that it's destroying the industry.

What an abjectly stupid thing to say. You can find evidence that stealing millions of dollars from a game developer doesn't discourage the production of new games? Really? Idiotic pirates and their half-assed justifications for ripping off honest, hard-working people...
Krazeh 13th November 2009, 20:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwabman
What an abjectly stupid thing to say. You can find evidence that stealing millions of dollars from a game developer doesn't discourage the production of new games? Really? Idiotic pirates and their half-assed justifications for ripping off honest, hard-working people...

Firstly piracy != stealing. Secondly there's plenty of evidence to show that piracy doesn't have nearly as big an impact as people try to make out, there's a recent news story here on Bit showing that just that (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/11/11/uk-trade-group-says-piracy-not-a-big-issue/1).
Tulatin 13th November 2009, 20:14 Quote
You people realize that the only reason that these people got banned, was because they were idiots right? If you want to play a game before the release date, you make a new profile on your 360, and you unplug the Ethernet cable. and BLAM, you're safe.

and honestly, downloading a game isn't stealing millions, or ripping off developers. Drop your childish arguments. Trumping around on your high horses will never help, nor prove your points. All it does is make you look as stupid as say, the theist, or they who believe in creation. Let people do what they want when it has no direct harm to others, ffs.
M7ck 13th November 2009, 20:31 Quote
If it was up to me I would brick every pirates console (even the ones that claim they own the original). I hate everything to do with piracy and im glad Microsoft are doing something about it.
DXR_13KE 13th November 2009, 20:32 Quote
About piracy, lets say that money is not elastic, or is not as elastic as that.
shigllgetcha 13th November 2009, 20:34 Quote
yeh let ppl steal and leech of the money you spend on games after developers spend millions making games. why not just one person go out and buy a game and well all copy it, well see if that doesnt effect anyone.
PureSilver 13th November 2009, 20:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Firstly piracy != stealing.

Oh, come on. Enough with the half-arsed excuses for what is legally, effectively and morally theft of intellectual property. I'm not even going to argue this AGAIN but where the hell is boiledelephant's sig quote when you need it?

Anyway I'll just say good on Microsoft, they've shown the consumers that actually pay for their play that it appreciates their custom and support and that those who would rather download it can get f***ed. The response seems to have been largely proportionate - banning the modified hardware rather than the account is a well-meaning chastisement intended to get you to go straight but stick with XBox Live, which is what everybody wants, right?

Only one of the excuses so far (backup discs) has been even remotely believable - I was thinking that given the actual ultra-low cost of DVDs, perhaps the publishers could operate a swap system whereby for £2 or something you could take your scratched up disc in to a shop and swap it for a new one? That way the game company gets compensated for printing new discs, you don't lose your £45 investment, and nobody has to get Knock-off Nigel to have at their XBox with a soldering iron. The other responses excuses ("I have to pirate - games are too expensive") are all bollocks in my considered opinion. Either buying less, waiting for a price drop, or saving up are all options here.

In addition to this maybe - just maybe, I'm a realist - it will give a few thousand XBox users second thoughts about the entire process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
A tool yes, but sadly its parents that often get a console "modified" for their kids, then the kids want to play with their mates and go online and get caught.

Is this really true?! I can't imagine anything my parents would be less likely to do than get illegal modifications made to a games console. The same goes for people who bought it second-hand, allegedly knowing nothing of the mysterious powers - the facts are these: MS only banned people who were playing MW when the only way they could have done so was illegally. Fair's fair; if you didn't know your console had been chipped, you won't have a problem because you wouldn't have downloaded MW2 illegally and tried to play it online, so you won't have been banned. The best bit of this by far is the injured pose adopted by the banned as they suddenly actually face a teeny taste of the legal consequences of piracy.
capnPedro 13th November 2009, 20:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
I can't imagine anything my parents would be less likely to do than get illegal modifications made to a games console.

I'm sorry, what crime is this now?
M7ck 13th November 2009, 20:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
I was thinking that given the actual ultra-low cost of DVDs, perhaps the publishers could operate a swap system whereby for £2 or something you could take your scratched up disc in to a shop and swap it for a new one?

This is a brilliant idea, it is imo easily doable and would do away with the 'I need a backup' excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
I'm sorry, what crime is this now?

You can read about a case here
NuTech 13th November 2009, 20:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
Only one of the excuses so far (backup discs) has been even remotely believable - I was thinking that given the actual ultra-low cost of DVDs, perhaps the publishers could operate a swap system whereby for £2 or something you could take your scratched up disc in to a shop and swap it for a new one? That way the game company gets compensated for printing new discs, you don't lose your £45 investment, and nobody has to get Knock-off Nigel to have at their XBox with a soldering iron. The other responses excuses ("I have to pirate - games are too expensive") are all bollocks in my considered opinion. Either buying less, waiting for a price drop, or saving up are all options here.
Precisely, 'backups' is a moot point. If you were to damage a disk to the point it becomes unplayable, most publishers will happily swap the disk for a small fee.
TheUn4seen 13th November 2009, 20:54 Quote
Lol @ brainwashed people thinking that piracy is evil. I know lots of people that bought a game (or a movie) just because they downloaded and liked it. And learn about the the difference between stealing (removing the original) and copying. But banning people that played pirated copies before release date is nice - stupidity should be punished on all occasions.
M7ck 13th November 2009, 21:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
Lol @ brainwashed people thinking that piracy is evil. I know lots of people that bought a game (or a movie) just because they downloaded and liked it. And learn about the the difference between stealing (removing the original) and copying. But banning people that played pirated copies before release date is nice - stupidity should be punished on all occasions.

Fact is that downloading movies/music/games IS illegal, im sure some people do end up buying the full retail product however it in no way makes up for downloading it in the first place.
NuTech 13th November 2009, 21:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
Lol @ brainwashed people thinking that piracy is evil. I know lots of people that bought a game (or a movie) just because they downloaded and liked it. And learn about the the difference between stealing (removing the original) and copying. But banning people that played pirated copies before release date is nice - stupidity should be punished on all occasions.
Eh, I really dislike it when people limit the scope of the definition of stealing simply to support their own arguement.

If you pirate a game, yes you may not be stealing a physical object, but you are stealing the intellectual property owners ability to ever sell you that product.

Now an acceptable counter arguement could be that only the pirate themselves could ever know whether or not possessing that illegal copy will ever prevent them from purchasing a legal copy. Such an example could be pirating a game for the single player experience but then deciding you must play the multiplayer, therefore deciding to purchase a copy.

However, those who claim the amount of people who pirate a game and then go on to purchase said game equals (or comes close) those who pirate a game and never purchase it, well, they're just crazy. No way, no how are those two numbers even close to each other.
do_it_anyway 13th November 2009, 21:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver

Is this really true?! I can't imagine anything my parents would be less likely to do than get illegal modifications made to a games console.
Sadly, In my experience, yes.
I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with someone at work who has had his daughters Wii "altered" with the famous game save, and now uses only pirated discs, as well as buying pirate DS games for her as well. The reason? Its just too expensive to get her all the games she wants! Sadly society dictates we must get our kids what they want RIGHT NOW. Hence why people pay 3x the cost for the must have toy each christmas. The same people then might want their darlings to have the latest games, on release day, or maybe even before. What great parents they would be to get the game the day before release!!!!!

And to the people who think its unfair to buy one thats already been chipped? Have you ever bought a car thats been written off, or stolen. You get nothing back. Not a sausage.
capnPedro 13th November 2009, 21:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
You can read about a case here

You're misinterpreting the law. It's illegal for him to make a profit by selling the service of supplying hardware designed to allow piracy.

It's dumb if you ask me; a hammer is a tool but it can also be used for burglary. Doesn't mean it should be illegal to sell.

Back on the original topic, though I think Microsoft are right to ban modded consoles from online play. You agree to the terms of service of Live. If they bricked consoles I'd be annoyed (you should be able to do what you want to hardware you own) and one of the agreements is everyone plays on a level field (the same hardware). No hacks. No mods.

Preventing piracy is just a side effect of this rule, but it's a good thing.
Star*Dagger 13th November 2009, 21:46 Quote
Stealing from Evil corporations is not a crime, more like "Way to Go!"
DarkLord7854 13th November 2009, 21:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Stealing from Evil corporations is not a crime, more like "Way to Go!"

Stealing is stealing no matter who from.
PureSilver 13th November 2009, 22:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
You're misinterpreting the law. It's illegal for him to make a profit by selling the service of supplying hardware designed to allow piracy.

It's dumb if you ask me; a hammer is a tool but it can also be used for burglary. Doesn't mean it should be illegal to sell.

Well, technically he's not misinterpreting the law, in the sense that the action of modifying consoles for profit is illegal, as that case illustrates. I doubt whether if he was giving them away he would have gotten away with it, though I'm afraid there's no case reference supplied and I don't study IP 'til next year... It's a poor comparison with hammers, though. Hammers have a legal purpose - craft - and are misused in the criminal acts of burglary or assault/battery, much like needles have a legal purpose - medicine - and are misused in the criminal act of administering illegal drugs. Mod chips, on the other hand, have no legitimate purpose - they exist solely for the purpose of circumventing restrictions and enabling consoles to play games that they are not supposed to. Whether that's the morally legitimate copies-of-games-bought-legally, or the less-so games-I-torrented, it doesn't make any difference in the eyes of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUn4seen
Lol @ brainwashed people thinking that piracy is evil. I know lots of people that bought a game (or a movie) just because they downloaded and liked it. And learn about the the difference between stealing (removing the original) and copying. But banning people that played pirated copies before release date is nice - stupidity should be punished on all occasions.

Lol @ people in denial about the motives, outcomes, and morals of piracy. Lots of people buy what they pirate, sure. But the huge majority do not, particularly with music. Also;
  1. There is no legal distinction between "stealing (removing the original)" and piracy. You don't buy the physical game so much as you buy a licence to play it; it's the same with DVDs and CDs - it's not the physical matter that matters but the incorporeal license. Unfortunately, guess what? Piracy is theft of licence. In a legal sense, piracy = theft.
  2. There is no moral distinction between them either. In legal terms, you enjoy the unjust benefit of the product either way. In a moral sense, piracy = theft.
  3. At least if you shoplifted the damn thing, it would be the retailers' margins that suffer. With piracy the game developer whose hard work you've nicked and are enjoying without recompense is suffering because they never even managed to sell the game to a distributor before you stole it.

I like especially the distinction you draw between pirating, which is apparently OK, and getting caught pirating, which is somehow not.

And now - the end of the thread hijack!
birdmaniw 13th November 2009, 22:44 Quote
Whilst I agree That it is right for Microsoft to ban users of modded Xboxs from Xbox Live I think they are wrong to not allow them back onto Xbox Live if they un-mod their Xbox. I can see this causing a lot of problems on auction sites such as Ebay when someone unwittingly buys an Xbox that has at some time in its life been modded and thrown off Xbox Live. Are Microsoft prepared to compensate those that unwiitingly buy one of these machines? I think not. Mind you the other side of the coin is that if Microsoft reduced the prices of the games by 50% then people would not be so keen to pirate them and in any case Microsoft would sell far more games and I doubt would notice the 50% price reduction. But still they wont do that because, like the music and film industry, they want to rip us off and screw us for every penny they can.
capnPedro 13th November 2009, 22:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
Well, technically he's not misinterpreting the law, in the sense that the action of modifying consoles for profit is illegal, as that case illustrates. I doubt whether if he was giving them away he would have gotten away with it,
Iwasn't really trying to distinguish between profit/non-profit, more commercial/personal use. Modding your console for personal use, to run backups should not be illegal. See fair use. Software companies keep banging on about how you never buy software, it's just licensed. If it's licensed, it should matter what medium it's being run from because you're paying for the content, not the disc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
It's a poor comparison with hammers, though. Hammers have a legal purpose - craft - and are misused in the criminal acts of burglary or assault/battery, much like needles have a legal purpose - medicine - and are misused in the criminal act of administering illegal drugs.
Yeah, I agree it is a bad comparison. But again, a mod chip can be a device to enable fair use. Legitimate use.

Disclaimer: my Xbox is not chipped and I own two dozen legit games. I don't even buy into the whole 'backup idea' I've been gaming since I was 6 and never scratched a disc in my life. Still, I'll fight for fair use and freedom of speech to the grave.
ZERO <ibis> 14th November 2009, 00:30 Quote
This is going to be bad when someone buys one of those things used and realized it does not work online...
Thedarkrage 14th November 2009, 00:45 Quote
trust me in game we have been having ppl bring them in to trade for a another used 360 lol only costing them £55 some have even got ps3s instead
NuTech 14th November 2009, 00:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thedarkrage
trust me in game we have been having ppl bring them in to trade for a another used 360 lol only costing them £55 some have even got ps3s instead
Is GAME testing them or selling them on with a warning about the ban?
PureSilver 14th November 2009, 01:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnPedro
Iwasn't really trying to distinguish between profit/non-profit, more commercial/personal use. Modding your console for personal use, to run backups should not be illegal. See fair use. Software companies keep banging on about how you never buy software, it's just licensed. If it's licensed, it should matter what medium it's being run from because you're paying for the content, not the disc.

I absolutely agree, I just wish there was a better way to distinguish Fair Use applications from blatant rip-offs.

I'm interested to hear what Game and other part-exchangers are doing about it. If I bought an XBox secondhand from them and it was blocked I'd be pretty pissed and, I think, well within my rights to return it. If it's being sold as 'in working order' that's likely to be included, I fear.
general22 14th November 2009, 01:10 Quote
This is some pretty dodgy stuff by MS,I agree they can ban you whenever they like from their own service but disabling 360 features like media extender and hard drive installs should not be allowed and if I had a modded console then I would look at legal options against MS. It is not their hardware and I challenge someone to show me where they have a provision to remove advertised features from your console.
Krazeh 14th November 2009, 01:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver

Lots of people buy what they pirate, sure. But the huge majority do not, particularly with music.

There's been plenty of studies done that show that people who have downloaded music actually end up buying more of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
There is no legal distinction between "stealing (removing the original)" and piracy. You don't buy the physical game so much as you buy a licence to play it; it's the same with DVDs and CDs - it's not the physical matter that matters but the incorporeal license. Unfortunately, guess what? Piracy is theft of licence. In a legal sense, piracy = theft.

If there's no legal distinction then why do 'pirates' get prosecuted for copyright infringement rather than theft? It's because downloading a copy of a game, or a movie, or music is not theft in a legal sense. To constitute theft you have to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, which is not the case when you create a copy of an item and leave the original with the owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
There is no moral distinction between them either. In legal terms, you enjoy the unjust benefit of the product either way. In a moral sense, piracy = theft.

In your opinion that is. Just because you equate piracy to theft in a moral sense doesn't make it an absolute truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
At least if you shoplifted the damn thing, it would be the retailers' margins that suffer. With piracy the game developer whose hard work you've nicked and are enjoying without recompense is suffering because they never even managed to sell the game to a distributor before you stole it.

Considering that most people who pirate games would likely not have bought the item anyway then I don't see how you think it's better that retailers end up buying items they're not gonna shift just so game developers can feel good about creating a game noone wanted to buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Eh, I really dislike it when people limit the scope of the definition of stealing simply to support their own arguement.

And I really dislike it when people extend the definition of stealing simply to support their own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
If you pirate a game, yes you may not be stealing a physical object, but you are stealing the intellectual property owners ability to ever sell you that product.

You're doing no such thing, pirating a game doesn't in anyway alter the property owners ability to sell you the physical product. Just because you've downloaded a copy of a game doesn't mean you can't, or won't, go out and buy a copy. At most it may make you realise that something you were going to spend 40 quid on is actually uttter dross and not worth more than 20 minutes of your time but for anything decent you were either not going to buy it in the first place, or will end up buying it regardless of having downloaded a copy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
Now an acceptable counter arguement could be that only the pirate themselves could ever know whether or not possessing that illegal copy will ever prevent them from purchasing a legal copy. Such an example could be pirating a game for the single player experience but then deciding you must play the multiplayer, therefore deciding to purchase a copy.

However, those who claim the amount of people who pirate a game and then go on to purchase said game equals (or comes close) those who pirate a game and never purchase it, well, they're just crazy. No way, no how are those two numbers even close to each other.

I'm sure the numbers aren't anywhere close to each other but in the same vein the number of "lost sales" claimed by publishers is nowhere close to the number of people who would have actually bought a copy but didn't because they pirated it instead.
impar 14th November 2009, 10:22 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
There's been plenty of studies done that show that people who have downloaded music actually end up buying more of it.
People that buy music, want music for free also?
And the more people buy, the more they want for free?
M7ck 14th November 2009, 10:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
/snip

Are you just pissed off because you have been banned from live?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
There's been plenty of studies done that show that people who have downloaded music actually end up buying more of it.

I have NEVER seen any such study and I challenge you to provide a link to any reputable study and results of this. Im sure you cant because the only people that claim pirates buy also are the thieving *******s themselves when they are trying to justify theft.
Krazeh 14th November 2009, 11:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

People that buy music, want music for free also?
And the more people buy, the more they want for free?

No, people who download music end up buying more of it. The fact is the ability to download music opens people up to genres/artists that they otherwise would not have even considered buying. I've seen it happen with several people and i've done it myself so it does happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Are you actually condoning piracy? You are claiming that piracy is not theft?

I don't recall ever saying I condoned piracy but yes I am claiming that piracy is not theft, for the simple reason that it isn't. You can argue that point as much as you like but until a change in the law piracy isn't, and cannot be, theft. And yes I also think that there is a moral difference between theft, where someone loses a tangible object, and piracy where all that is lost is some hypothetical object or construct. I'm not saying either is right or acceptable but there is a difference between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I think its safe to say that you pirate/steal most things, you are a low life loser if you steal and I will not enter into any further discussions with you if this is the case. Or a you just pissed off because you have been banned from live?

Well done, I see you're a subscriber to the school of "I can't come up with a decent counter-argument so i'll resort to insults". Just because I don't subscribe to your view that piracy is the heinous crime you'd like to make it out to be or that it's as damaging to the industry as certain bodies would have us believe does not make mean that I make a habit of pirating or stealing things. Nor does my view have anything to do with whether or not I may have been banned from xbox live, which btw I haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I have NEVER seen any such study and I challenge you to provide a link to any reputable study and results of this. Im sure you cant because the only people that claim pirates buy also are the thieving *******s themselves when they are trying to justify theft.

Perhaps you should take off your blinkers and take a look around then? A quick google search brings up several results including an article from arstechnica that discusses a report from the BI Norwegian School of Management and also links to a report about a 2006 study by the Canadian Record Industry Association, both of which concluded that people who downloaded music ended up buying more. And then there's this article which discusses a study by Demos which again found that people who download music spend more than people who don't download.

But then again I suppose the BI Norwegian School of Management, the Canadian Record Industry Association and Demos must all be groups of thieving *******s mustn't they? After all no rational minded individual could possibly come to a conclusion that differs from that forced down our necks by those bodies with a vested interest in ensuring that the purchase and consumption of media remains the way it's been for the last 50-60 years.
M7ck 14th November 2009, 11:26 Quote
The links you have posted are laughable, neither shows any results and combined have less than 3000 people participating.

Also you have a record label (EMI) rubbishing the claims.

I do apologise for the 'insults' and did edit them out 15 mins before you posted, however I did mention you are only a low life loser IF YOU STEAL. You have since admitted you have stolen (theft is theft no matter how you try to dress it up) so maybe the comment should stand?
Krazeh 14th November 2009, 11:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
The links you have posted are laughable, neither shows any results and combined have less than 3000 people participating.

Strange because when I read them they definitely included details of each reports major findings. And asking a relatively small number of people a number of questions and then extrapolating the results to a bigger group is kind of how studies work. As long as the original small group contains enough people to be sufficiently randomised then the results can be taken to apply to a larger group well enough.

Anyway the point still stands that studies have been conducted by reputable bodies which have concluded that people who download music end up buying more music overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Also you have a record label (EMI) rubbishing the claims.

Gee, that's a suprise. A record label, who are desperate for people to go back to how they used to buy music 10-15 years ago, dispute the claims that piracy isn't the cause for the drop in music revenue. Because obviously they're the sort of people who are well known for introspective analysis of their business practices and are always keen to embrace new ideas and technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I do apologise for the 'insults' and did edit them out 15 mins before you posted, however I did mention you are only a low life loser IF YOU STEAL. You have since admitted you have stolen (theft is theft no matter how you try to dress it up) so maybe the comment should stand?

And you started so well with the apology. I don't recall admitting anywhere that I have stolen (not that piracy is theft no matter how much you try to wedge it in there). And btw that's not an admission that i've been involved in piracy either.
M7ck 14th November 2009, 11:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
I don't recall admitting anywhere that I have stolen (not that piracy is theft no matter how much you try to wedge it in there). And btw that's not an admission that i've been involved in piracy either.

okay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No, people who download music end up buying more of it. The fact is the ability to download music opens people up to genres/artists that they otherwise would not have even considered buying. I've seen it happen with several people and i've done it myself so it does happen.

Whatever I say you will disagree with, so thats me done with this.
impar 14th November 2009, 11:55 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No, people who download music end up buying more of it.
Nope. People that buy more music, also download more.
People that arent interested in music, dont download.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=177483
mjm25 14th November 2009, 13:40 Quote
can't you just change the network card/chip and away you go again? (different MAC address)
PureSilver 14th November 2009, 14:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjm25
can't you just change the network card/chip and away you go again? (different MAC address)

I thought it wasn't the MAC - apparently those are manually resettable in XBoxes or something? (I don't own one, this is all third-hand). I thought it was something else; the hacks that so far get around this do so by making multiple personalities of an unbanned 'box that you can only use online at alternative times (i.e., Xbox Live thinks they're both the unbanned Xbox when they aren't, so you can only use them at different times in case it spots this multiple-personality-disorder and permabans you both).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
No, people who download music end up buying more of it.

Indeed. I take issue with your cause-and-effect there - it seems to me more that people who like lots of music buy a proportionally larger amount and download a proportionally larger amount. New genres is all good but there are undeniably several non-copyright-infringing services (Spotify, Pandora, hell, even MySpace will keep you in with the indie scene) that do similar jobs without the piracy thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
Considering that most people who pirate games would likely not have bought the item anyway... You're doing no such thing, pirating a game doesn't in anyway alter the property owners ability to sell you the physical product.

This I find the most bizarre bit. They wouldn't have bought the item anyway? We'll never know if they would have bought it or not in the first place, but I think we can agree that once they've gone to all the trouble of downloading it, hacking their XBox and playing it, they're much less likely to buy it. Why would they? They're enjoying all the benefits with, er, none of the costs. Doesn't already possessing the thing somewhat hamper the ability to sell you it? Or do people regularly buy more copies of things they already have all they need of? Over half a million XBoxes banned, apparently; you're seriously suggesting all those people were just giving MW2 (one frikkin' game!) a bit of a try before rushing out with their hard-earned? In addition the PC version may not be without controversy but you're going to struggle to find a majority of XBox users who think that game is 'dross' or, indeed, ever realistically expected it to be so.

Face facts - it's even more obvious in gaming because you have to invest actual money in avoiding paying the money. Whilst there certainly are people who buy what they download because they like it, you don't pay for a modchip unless you're planning to make playing unlicensed copies of games a regular occurrence. That's not something that rings true with 'try before you buy.'
do_it_anyway 14th November 2009, 14:37 Quote
Try before you buy? On a console that has a good 80% (made up figure - pure guesswork) of games available as a playable demo first? You download the demo...for free.... like it, then buy it. You don't need the full game to tell if you are going to like it or not. MW2 did not have a demo, I know, and that is one of the reasons its likely to be a heavily pirated game (don't get me started on the broken multiplayer again).

And as for people who buy a chipped console by mistake...... As I said before, if you buy a car thats been stolen, the police take it off you. You get nowt back. If you buy one thats been a write off, you lose all value on it, if you buy one thats been welded back together badly, it fails its MOT and you get nothing.
If you buy 2nd hand you take chances. Maybe people should be wary of an XBox that looks like it has been tampered with. After all, there will be tell tale signs. You wouldn't buy your car off a car thief, why buy your console off a pirate?
NuTech 14th November 2009, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
This I find the most bizarre bit. They wouldn't have bought the item anyway? We'll never know if they would have bought it or not in the first place, but I think we can agree that once they've gone to all the trouble of downloading it, hacking their XBox and playing it, they're much less likely to buy it. Why would they? They're enjoying all the benefits with, er, none of the costs. Doesn't already possessing the thing somewhat hamper the ability to sell you it? Or do people regularly buy more copies of things they already have all they need of? Over half a million XBoxes banned, apparently; you're seriously suggesting all those people were just giving MW2 (one frikkin' game!) a bit of a try before rushing out with their hard-earned? In addition the PC version may not be without controversy but you're going to struggle to find a majority of XBox users who think that game is 'dross' or, indeed, ever realistically expected it to be so.
That is precisely the problem (or at least one of them). Nobody apart from yourself can ever know for sure if you were one day going to buy that game you pirated (in which case the IP owner was never going to see your money anyway), or if you might have purchased it if there was no possibility of pirating it.

You could even go further with the arguement that even you yourself do not know what you will or won't buy when the opportunity arises. For example, you refuse to buy Batman:Arkham Asylum for £40 due to it being a single player only experience - you therefore decide to pirate it. But what if a year later you see it for £10 in the bargain bin? Regardless of it now being a great deal, you probably won't buy it because you've already completed it a year ago.

The possibility of the game ever being sold to you has effectively been stolen. That is where the real theft happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
Face facts - it's even more obvious in gaming because you have to invest actual money in avoiding paying the money. Whilst there certainly are people who buy what they download because they like it, you don't pay for a modchip unless you're planning to make playing unlicensed copies of games a regular occurrence. That's not something that rings true with 'try before you buy.'
Not to argue semantics, but pirating Xbox 360 games (which is what the original topic is about) doesn't actually require the use of a modchip. That is something which infuriates Microsoft, there being no physical product for them to crack down on. It's all done by changing the DVD drive's firmware.

But I completely agree with the principle of your point. The investment of time and effort required to 'mod' your Xbox 360 most definitely implies that you're not doing it for honest reasons.
NuTech 14th November 2009, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
And as for people who buy a chipped console by mistake...... As I said before, if you buy a car thats been stolen, the police take it off you. You get nowt back. If you buy one thats been a write off, you lose all value on it, if you buy one thats been welded back together badly, it fails its MOT and you get nothing.
If you buy 2nd hand you take chances. Maybe people should be wary of an XBox that looks like it has been tampered with. After all, there will be tell tale signs. You wouldn't buy your car off a car thief, why buy your console off a pirate?
I think comparing someone purchasing a modified console by mistake (with clever use of a hair dryer, there are no signs of tampering) is quite different from buying a stolen car.

There are a variety of ways to check the legitimacy of a car (registration plate, VIN's, log book etc), not to mention the countless amount of publicly available databases which keep track of these things. Even on a well made Ringer (cloned stolen car), there are tell-tale signs something is not right.

With an Xbox 360, aside from plugging it in and trying it (which isn't always possible when buying second hand), there isn't much you can do to verify what you're buying.

Legal complications not withstanding, I think Microsoft should publish the serial numbers of all banned consoles online. This would at least give people some way of knowing a consoles history. They'll never actually do this because they want to maximise the fear of buying a banned console to encourage people to get a new one instead.

Anyway, after a bit of asking around, it looks like big retailers such as GAME will replace any second hand console they sell if it turns out it's banned from Live. Obviously this gives no comfort to private sales. Pretty much on your own there.
DXR_13KE 14th November 2009, 20:11 Quote
First of all let me say that i know that piracy is illegal in most countries and that if you like it you should buy it (i live by this philosophy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
You could even go further with the arguement that even you yourself do not know what you will or won't buy when the opportunity arises. For example, you refuse to buy Batman:Arkham Asylum for £40 due to it being a single player only experience - you therefore decide to pirate it. But what if a year later you see it for £10 in the bargain bin? Regardless of it now being a great deal, you probably won't buy it because you've already completed it a year ago.

Let me check my game collection...

My game collection does not agree with you, all of them were games i pirated, completed and then purchased when they got to <20€ and i saved enough cash to buy them.

If i see a game that is very good and is at a price that i can buy then i will buy it, money is not elastic enough for me to buy games at the prices they ask for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech
The possibility of the game ever being sold to you has effectively been stolen. That is where the real theft happens.

That in the event that you have money for it... let me explain:

Imagine that you are like me and have a value of X€ of income and Y€ bills that have to be paid (like electricity, water, food, etc...) C€ is the value of money that is available for you to spend on "stuff" (games, movies, music, etc...), this value is either totally used, partially used or totally saved so that you can add it to the C value that you will get next month so that you can get more expensive "stuff". The number of "stuff" you can buy is limited by C€, considering that you blow the entire value of C on "stuff" every month and then pirate some more "stuff", what is the probability of the makers of said "stuff" gaining more money if piracy ceased to exist?
M7ck 14th November 2009, 20:19 Quote
Yet another thief trying to justify it.

If you cant afford it then tough **** you dont get to play it. I cant afford a Ferrari but im not going to steal one then justify it by saying that when I have the money or its value drops to something I can afford, I will pay for it then.
Tulatin 14th November 2009, 20:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Yet another thief trying to justify it.

If you cant afford it then tough **** you dont get to play it. I cant afford a Ferrari but im not going to steal one then justify it by saying that when I have the money or its value drops to something I can afford, I will pay for it then.

Shut the **** up, you ****ing retard.

Christ. Is it so hard to get off your high horse on the subject of piracy, Bit-Tech? The people who get off on being mighty about it won't shut up, and the people who do it STILL WILL.

To clarify it - PIRACY IS NOT THEFT ON A PERSONAL SCALE. There is NO loss. There is NO cost.Whether you chose to buy the game after downloading it is irrelevant. It's like saying that sneaking into a movie is loss.

Can we just make these sort of discussions and threads bannable already? I'm tired of watching holier-than-thou retards whinge.
M7ck 14th November 2009, 20:29 Quote
Calling me a retard? This thread is about piracy so it is reasonable to talk about it.

Launching a personal attack on me for not condoning an illegal act should be a bannable offence.

And piracy IS THEFT
AshT 14th November 2009, 20:33 Quote
FACT: no one has modded their console for legit reasons.

Can't believe you guys are still debating what is or isn't acceptable piracy. There is no acceptable piracy. If you didn't buy it you don't deserve to have it. That's how the world works.
AshT 14th November 2009, 20:46 Quote
Ok re-read my fact and I guess their MIGHT be one person out there who modded for backup reasons but I find that hard to believe.
DXR_13KE 14th November 2009, 21:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Yet another thief trying to justify it.

I am not trying to justify it, it looks like you suffer from some sort of reading disorder, please read my post again. I said nothing in favour of piracy, what i did say is that with or without piracy the companies that produce media would earn almost the same amount of money as they do now... that or they would start getting more money and other sectors of industry would start to suffer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
If you cant afford it then tough **** you dont get to play it. I cant afford a Ferrari but im not going to steal one then justify it by saying that when I have the money or its value drops to something I can afford, I will pay for it then.

Hmmm... good point, but lets try something out:

Which of the following scenarios is more similar to software "piracy"?

A) I want a Ferrari, i go to a shop/house and steal one.

B) I want a Ferrari, i use a special camera/scanner (that is standard equipment in every computer) that makes an exact digital copy of the Ferrari, or, i use Google to search for a site from where i can get the data, then i use an "universal constructor" (also standard equipment) device to make a physical car out of the data, i use the car for myself and don't sell it.

C) I want a Ferrari, i use a special camera/scanner (that is standard equipment in every computer) that makes an exact digital copy of the Ferrari, or, i use Google to search for a site from where i can get the data, then i use an "universal constructor" (also standard equipment) device to make a physical car out of the data, i make several copies of the car and sell them at a much lower price than the real one.


Another question: Considering that you are in an university, there are several disciplines where you need to do projects on several programs in CS4 (an earlier version wont do, neither will a free or alternative version), the university wont lend or give you a licence, you don't have enough money to afford it (you almost can't afford to go to the university in the first place), there are 5 computers with CS4 that students can use, there are about 200 students that need to use these computers on projects that take several days to do and you need to use CS4 urgently to make a work for a discipline.
What do you do?

edit:

Final question: Do you photocopy (Xerox) any documents or books?
M7ck 14th November 2009, 21:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
I am not trying to justify it, it looks like you suffer from some sort of reading disorder, please read my post again. I said nothing in favour of piracy, what i did say is that with or without piracy the companies that produce media would earn almost the same amount of money as they do now... that or they would start getting more money and other sectors of industry would start to suffer...

If everybody pirated then the companies would make hee haw.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Hmmm... good point, but lets try something out:

Which of the following scenarios is more similar to software "piracy"?

A) I want a Ferrari, i go to a shop/house and steal one.

B) I want a Ferrari, i use a special camera/scanner (that is standard equipment in every computer) that makes an exact digital copy of the Ferrari, or, i use Google to search for a site from where i can get the data, then i use an "universal constructor" (also standard equipment) device to make a physical car out of the data, i use the car for myself and don't sell it.

C) I want a Ferrari, i use a special camera/scanner (that is standard equipment in every computer) that makes an exact digital copy of the Ferrari, or, i use Google to search for a site from where i can get the data, then i use an "universal constructor" (also standard equipment) device to make a physical car out of the data, i make several copies of the car and sell them at a much lower price than the real one.

All of the above imo is theft and akin to piracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Another question: Considering that you are in an university, there are several disciplines where you need to do projects on several programs in CS4 (an earlier version wont do, neither will a free or alternative version), the university wont lend or give you a licence, you don't have enough money to afford it (you almost can't afford to go to the university in the first place), there are 5 computers with CS4 that students can use, there are about 200 students that need to use these computers on projects that take several days to do and you need to use CS4 urgently to make a work for a discipline.
What do you do?

Just because you cant afford something doesnt give you the right to pirate it. But if you cant complete your course due to the fact that you dont have the correct software then maybe you shouldnt be on it. If the software has became a must since you had signed up then it is surely the universitys responsibility to ensure everyone has access.

Now im sure a lot of people will say its ok as it will ultimately help better the person but I still dont agree. I would love to start my own business but dont have the funds to do so, now if I was to rob a bank/post office or similar to fund my business, would this be considered acceptable? I realise the example i have used might not be the most fitting but ultimately theft is theft.

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

Final question: Do you photocopy (Xerox) any documents or books?

Yes I do photocopy documents, however all documents that I have copied have been for the author of the document.

I have NEVER photocopied a book.
capnPedro 14th November 2009, 22:04 Quote
When you buy a game second hand, the developer receives no money. It all goes to the shop selling the game on. So, ethically, is piracy no worse than buying second hand?
Kiytan 14th November 2009, 22:10 Quote
you can dress it up all you like, argue petty semantics (is it theft, copywright infringement e.t.c) But at the end of the day, it IS illegal, no if's, buts or maybe's. It IS illegal.

I see absolutly no reason MS should have to apologise.

Interestingly, one of my friends got banned from xbox live (for pirating, in the recent wave) and while he was pissed off, he just accepted it as a risk he took when he decided to pirate games.
Krazeh 14th November 2009, 23:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Calling me a retard? This thread is about piracy so it is reasonable to talk about it.

Launching a personal attack on me for not condoning an illegal act should be a bannable offence.

Oh the irony. Considering you already started with the personal attacks earlier in the thread then you're hardly in a position to get on your high horse about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
And piracy IS THEFT

No it's not. You can keep repeating that it is to try and convince yourself that you're right but it's not gonna change the fact that piracy is not theft, which is why pirates get prosecuted for copyright infringement and not theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshT
FACT: no one has modded their console for legit reasons.

Well i'm glad that you've done the research and have checked out everyone who has ever modded their console so you can bring us that undeniable fact. Oh wait, you haven't have you? Just because you can't grasp the concept of someone wanting to mod their console solely to be able to use backups of their own games doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or that it's a isolated case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
All of the above imo is theft and akin to piracy.

Well, of course, you're entitled to your own opinion but only one of the examples provided by DXR_13KE would end up permanently depriving Ferrari of their property and could therefore be considered to be theft.
AshT 14th November 2009, 23:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshT
Ok re-read my fact and I guess their MIGHT be one person out there who modded for backup reasons but I find that hard to believe.

Krazeh, shame you just pulled out what you needed for an argument, had you read the post or not ignored the post I made straight after then maybe you would have a leg.
Krazeh 14th November 2009, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshT
Krazeh, shame you just pulled out what you needed for an argument, had you read the post or not ignored the post I made straight after then maybe you would have a leg.

Actually I did read that post and didn't ignore it, hence my reference to people modding their consoles for playing backups not being an isolated incident. Or are you claiming that because you subsequently said you "guess their MIGHT be one person out there who modded for backup reasons but I find that hard to believe" that your entire earlier comment was rescinded and should be ignored by everyone?
DXR_13KE 14th November 2009, 23:23 Quote
To start i will say again: Piracy is illegal! we all agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
If everybody pirated then the companies would make hee haw.

Were would the value of C (from my example above) go?

But you made me start thinking... imagine a world where everyone has the know how and the equipment to commit piracy, every single human being would have access to a computer, internet access, electricity, enough knowledge and education on how to use a computer and the internet, uncensored internet. Logically for each human to have this level of "comfort" they must have enough disposable income to sustain these things and feed themselves and their family, pay their taxes, etc... a world without war, poverty and hunger... but what about music, movies and games? Would they still be produced in such a world? Is there any artist/programmer that releases their stuff for free?

Enough daydreaming, you may now call me an idiot and a thief and each time you call me that i will think about the above hypothetical world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
All of the above imo is theft and akin to piracy.

hmmm... so anything that copies or removes an attribute or object from another person "is theft and akin to piracy"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Just because you cant afford something doesnt give you the right to pirate it. But if you cant complete your course due to the fact that you dont have the correct software then maybe you shouldnt be on it. If the software has became a must since you had signed up then it is surely the universitys responsibility to ensure everyone has access.

Now im sure a lot of people will say its ok as it will ultimately help better the person but I still dont agree. I would love to start my own business but dont have the funds to do so, now if I was to rob a bank/post office or similar to fund my business, would this be considered acceptable? I realise the example i have used might not be the most fitting but ultimately theft is theft.

And the university did ensure access to the software, with 5 really crappy computers that wont work most of the time.

If you are poor or have a standard level of income then you are are not allowed to do any kind of engineering, multimedia, medical and design courses... you have eradicated "theft" from my university, congratulations, but at the same time you have made the gap between rich and poor bigger and you will be responsible for the university closing. Why?
Most of the students have gone to other universities or countries that don't do that kind of thing (thus making the university loose lots of money and be made redundant) and the ones that can't (i live in an island) or wont (because they refuse to commit piracy) will enlarge the already huge number of unemployed...

If you want to start your own business it will be better to search for investors or talk to a bank and ask for a loan, it will be smarter and better than robbing the bank, in the end you will be using money that is not yours but you will not go to prison if you are caught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
edit:

Yes I do photocopy documents, however all documents that I have copied have been for the author of the document.

I have NEVER photocopied a book.

You have NEVER copied any part of any book or document that you don't know the author personally?

Have you ever played music on some device in such a way that other people, that are not from your closest family, can hear it?

Have you ever given a game to another person?
M7ck 14th November 2009, 23:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

You have NEVER copied any part of any book or document that you don't know the author personally?

No I have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Have you ever played music on some device in such a way that other people, that are not from your closest family, can hear it?

Yes I have but that does not make me a thief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Have you ever given a game to another person?

Again yes but whats your point on this?
DXR_13KE 14th November 2009, 23:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
but whats your point on this?

Both make you a copyright infringer.

edit:

Since by your views: copyright infringement (a fancy word for piracy) = theft....
M7ck 14th November 2009, 23:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
Both make you a copyright infringer.

Im afraid you are wrong on this buddy. In britain the public music licence only applies if you are a business. If I play a CD in my home and everyone in my home can hear it then that is ok. And giving a game away doesn't infringe on any copyright.

Now how about you attempt to explain why I am a copyright infringer?

EDIT
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

edit:

Since by your views: copyright infringement (a fancy word for piracy) = theft....

So by giving games away and allowing my friends to listen to my music collection I am a thief?

You obviously have a screw loose somewhere, this is the end of my conversation with you.
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 00:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Im afraid you are wrong on this buddy. In britain the public music licence only applies if you are a business. If I play a CD in my home and everyone in my home can hear it then that is ok. And giving a game away doesn't infringe on any copyright.

Now how about you attempt to explain why I am a copyright infringer?

By copyright law you are not allowed to play a CD in public (pick up a CD or a DVD, read what is on the rim or on the booklet), this does not involve your family or close friends. Meaning that if you are outside playing music in your car in a way that more than the passengers of your car can hear it then you are committing copyright infringement.

Also notice on a EULA of a game has a line that says:

"You shall not Sell, rent, lease, licence, distribute or otherwise transfer this Program, or any copies if this Program, without the express prior written consent of [company name]"

Did you by any chance transfer (give) ownership of a game to another person or sell a game to a second hand shop without written consent of the maker of the game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
EDIT

So by giving games away and allowing my friends to listen to my music collection I am a thief?

You obviously have a screw loose somewhere, this is the end of my conversation with you.

Notice what you said there, you are allowing a person to use a software that they did not pay to use. The creators of that software will never see any profit from you "giving games away and allowing my friends to listen to" your "music collection".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuTech

The possibility of the game ever being sold to you has effectively been stolen. That is where the real theft happens.

I have lots of screws loose but i do have some of my games opened in front of me and i am reading the EULA, of the ones i can, just for you, i just lost another screw.
M7ck 15th November 2009, 00:28 Quote
Just looked at a couple of 360 games.

Unauthorised copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited.

Nowhere on any of the games I have does it say I cant give away/sell on. What games are you looking at?

Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the law than me can clear this up but im 99.9% sure than by giving a game away or even selling it for that matter does NOT infringe on any copyright.
Krazeh 15th November 2009, 00:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
Just looked at a couple of 360 games.

Unauthorised copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited.

Nowhere on any of the games I have does it say I cant give away/sell on. What games are you looking at?

Are you reading the back of the boxes or the manuals that came with the games? If it's the back of the boxes then you should also take a look at the manual which will likely have a section about the license somewhere towards the back of it. GH2 and GH:WT both do and they clearly state that you are given a non-transferable license and have no rights to sell or give away the game to anyone else.
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 00:46 Quote
Soldier of fortune 1 and 2.

Do you want me to scan the page?
M7ck 15th November 2009, 00:49 Quote
I was reading the back of the cases. I looked at one manual (GH3) and it does indeed say it is non trasferable licence. However im not sure that this makes it illegal to sell on. If this is the case then major retailers such as Game, Gamestation, HMV and countless others are commiting copyright theft/infringment everytime they sell a pre-owned game. Again I would like someone to clarify the exact laws to this. Just because its written doesnt make it bound by law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE

Do you want me to scan the page?

Very good ;)
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 00:59 Quote
My scanner bugging me, in the meantime i will let you read page 2 of the UT3 EULA:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1921409/Eula1.tif

save the file and navigate to page 2.

edit:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1921409/Image%20%2820%29.jpg
M7ck 15th November 2009, 01:07 Quote
I am not going to download it, but I do accept that eula will say something along the lines that you are unable to transfer the game.

However this does not make it illegal to do so (i am open to be proved wrong on this). Just because something is in writing doesnt make it enforcable by law.

My objection is that you are trying to brand me a pirate/thief for giving games away. I really dont see how this compares to downloading a computer game.

Giving a game away doe snot infringe on ANY copyright laws therefore I can not possibly be labeled a pirate.
Krazeh 15th November 2009, 01:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
My objection is that you are trying to brand me a pirate/thief for giving games away. I really dont see how this compares to downloading a computer game.

By giving games away you are giving someone the opportunity to benefit from a developer's work without that developer getting any recompense. It's not all that different from someone offering a copy for download, is just a matter of scale.
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 01:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I am not going to download it, but I do accept that eula will say something along the lines that you are unable to transfer the game.

However this does not make it illegal to do so (i am open to be proved wrong on this). Just because something is in writing doesnt make it enforcable by law.

If it is written in the End User Licence Agreement and you approved the EULA then you are bound by what it says in the EULA, you can not transfer it to another person or sell it.

As for second hand shops and media companies:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ea-second-hand-sales-are-a-critical-situation
Quote:
"I'd actually make the point that for us second-hand sales is a very critical situation, because people are selling multiple times intellectual property," said Jens Uwe Intat, senior VP and general manager for European publishing at EA, speaking exclusively to GamesIndustry.biz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
My objection is that you are trying to brand me a pirate/thief for giving games away. I really dont see how this compares to downloading a computer game.

I am not branding you as a thief, i am branding you as a pirate (you are violating the EULA), thanks to you the person that you gave the game to will not buy that game, the developer will never see profit being made from that person, if that person gives the game away again then there's 2 people in the world that will be playing that game and will never pay the developer a cent and will enjoy the fruits of his labour.

But, by selling the game second hand to another person, or shop, you go a level above this, you are effectively profiting from the sale of the game and the developer is still getting nothing.

Now imagine if everyone did this.
Quote:
"In our understanding of the business model we are actually giving away the rights to play, and if you just pass it on, pass it on, pass it on, that is not comparable to second-hand sales in the normal physical goods area where you have physical wear-out - second-hand cars, second-hand clothes, second-hand books... they're all physically wearing out, so you have an inferior quality product."

Also remember the debacle about you being able to re-sell Spore?
M7ck 15th November 2009, 01:40 Quote
I will agree to disagree. I am in no way a pirate, piracy is illegal. Doing something that contradicts a eula doesn't mean you are breaking the law. If a software company wrote into their eula that 'by opening this product you agree that you give us your first born child' this doesnt mean that i must hand over a baby to them. My example is absurd but the point remains the same.

Anyways my head is bursting and the wife is shouting on me to go and fulfill some of my marital duties so I will pick up on any replys in the morning.
Krazeh 15th November 2009, 02:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by M7ck
I am in no way a pirate, piracy is illegal. Doing something that contradicts a eula doesn't mean you are breaking the law.

That very much depends on whether the specific EULA terms are binding or fall foul of legislation such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act. In respect of giving away or selling the license for games I believe it to be a legal grey area and is not something which has yet been challenged in the Courts.

I do find it interesting that you appear to have no moral issues with a developer losing out on a sale when you give/sell a game to someone but find it morally reprehensible for a developer to have lost out on a sale due to someone having downloaded a copy of a game. The end result in both cases is exactly the same, someone has benefited from the developer's time and effort without having paid any recompense.
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 02:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
That very much depends on whether the specific EULA terms are binding or fall foul of legislation such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act. In respect of giving away or selling the license for games I believe it to be a legal grey area and is not something which has yet been challenged in the Courts.

I do find it interesting that you appear to have no moral issues with a developer losing out on a sale when you give/sell a game to someone but find it morally reprehensible for a developer to have lost out on a sale due to someone having downloaded a copy of a game. The end result in both cases is exactly the same, someone has benefited from the developer's time and effort without having paying any recompense.

You took the words out of my keyboard.
gnutonian 15th November 2009, 05:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazeh
That very much depends on whether the specific EULA terms are binding or fall foul of legislation such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act. In respect of giving away or selling the license for games I believe it to be a legal grey area and is not something which has yet been challenged in the Courts.

I do find it interesting that you appear to have no moral issues with a developer losing out on a sale when you give/sell a game to someone but find it morally reprehensible for a developer to have lost out on a sale due to someone having downloaded a copy of a game. The end result in both cases is exactly the same, someone has benefited from the developer's time and effort without having paying any recompense.
<3

Quote:
'by opening this product you agree that you give us your first born child' this doesnt mean that i must hand over a baby to them.
Indeed it doesn't, because giving children away (EULA or not) is illegal in most countries. There, now you've learned something.

Giving away/selling a game is something I agree with you on, though (having said that: I don't agree with anything else you've said). Morally speaking (****, and I do mean ****, letter-of-the-law speaking; because the laws governing this are made just to profit the companies. A EULA is a legally binding agreement, ffs, and it comes with OSs/software made for people who revel in being idiots) when you buy a game (or any object), it is your property. After purchasing it, you should be able to do what you will with it. Play it, have sex with it, sell it, break it. (OK, don't make a thousand copies and sell them on the street corner.)

Selling it second-hand after you're done with it is perfectly acceptable in my book. If the EULA forbids it, then that EULA is nothing but proof that these companies are greedy *******s who waste too much money on lawyers writing EULAs, because any sane person knows (a) barely anyone reads EULAs because they're unreadable to us proles and (b) that, even if they read EULAs, people would still sell their game and not care.

So, solution? Less money on lawyers, more money on development! Less money on management, more money on development! Less lying about the 500 billion the company lost (to the demise of Fluffy, the company hamster) because of evil pirates in the Gulf Of Aden!

Wait, what? Sorry, I got real pirates (the scary kind with guns and ****ing rockets) confused again with kids who live with their parents and download a game they can't afford anyway/wouldn't buy anyway because the price of alcohol's gone up. Big deal.

Poor Fluffy, though. It's time we think about the real victims of non-commercial copyright infringement (you know, "piracy"): Fluffy and my blood pressure.
boiled_elephant 15th November 2009, 07:14 Quote
Justice!
Tulatin 15th November 2009, 07:15 Quote
So I'm back from the Louvre. I stole the Mona lisa 12 times. You'd all better watch out. Interpol is going to be nosing around for me now.

All I'm trying to say is that the concept of "theft" is derivative. Generally speaking, it's about loss - measurable, quantifyable, hard loss. If you steal something from someone, or a store - they lose money, or an object. If you make a copy of something from this person or store - they may be hurt emotionally, but they have suffered no loss. So really, you need to look at it in this fashion;

Piracy, by no manner of grey area, is simply unethical. It's also technically "wrong". But as I've always said, you have your two groups of people - your consumers, and your pirates. Consumers will always buy - through whatever means or methods they feel the compulsion to. Pirates will be more likely to try and gain things for free. Removing the person's ability to attain this "Free" entertainment, will simply make them consume it at a normal paid rate.

But there's the thing. You can't say that "Piracy lost us xxxx dollars", because in theory, that money was never yours in the first place. It was potential.
boiled_elephant 15th November 2009, 07:37 Quote
You heartless *******! :D
AshT 15th November 2009, 08:20 Quote
Fight The Power!

Grief.

Enough with the bickerings and minute pickings over each others posts. If the corporate world could make giving games away or selling second hand (and they did try) illegal then they would, but there is no way to regulate it. Hence why digital copies are getting locked to accounts.

Out of 1,000,000 banned accounts, how many were acceptably modded consoles? None, it's not acceptable.
capnPedro 15th November 2009, 11:10 Quote
http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/funny_picture_kittens_in_a_teacup.jpg

Look at the kittens!
Fluffy kittens!
Silly kitten, what are you doing in a mug, you don't belong there!


This thread was getting a bit too angry, and a bit serious. Union rules dictate we must now take a mandatory kitten break.
BLC 15th November 2009, 13:27 Quote
Ahem. I assume we're done with the ins & outs of the legal definition of theft, piracy and copyright/IP infringement?

All that aside, this is not exactly new. Even with the original Xbox, if you went on Live with a modified console then you got banned from Live - end of. Now I'm not sure of the console was banned, or simply the Live account; I have a feeling that the console was banned, but I really can't back that up. You get caught with a modification that bypasses the built-in protections against running modified software, you get banned - I can't see a problem with that. As many have pointed out, they could have just as easily bricked the console; now that would be a disproportionate response.

I did actually modify my original Xbox to install a mod-chip. Buying the chip was not against the law, and neither was selling it - as long as it wasn't sold with the intention of being used as a mod-chip. Installing the chip was not illegal either - it may have voided my warranty, but my Xbox was already well out of warranty by this point. What was illegal however, was the reverse engineering of the Xbox BIOS to bypass the in-built restrictions against running unsigned software by the original hackers, and by extension, my use of a modified BIOS in the mod-chip in order to bypass these protections. What was also illegal, was compiling homebrew software using illegal copies of Microsoft's XDK. Even with the open-source XDK that's now been built, you still need to have an illegally modified console in order to run the software, as it will not be signed software.

I did also get hold of pirated games for the Xbox - I'll freely admit that. I also stopped doing this soon afterwards, because the games were either massive and took ages to download, or had degraded video & audio samples. This doesn't justify breaking the law though, and I admit that - and you can argue 'til the cows come home about exactly which law I broke, or whether or not it constituted piracy or theft, but it's still illegal.

As soon as I found XBMC, my modified Xbox became a media centre - something which it has excelled at for many years, and it's only being retired as it doesn't support HD codecs.
DXR_13KE 15th November 2009, 13:51 Quote
I know several people in your situation.
thehippoz 15th November 2009, 15:11 Quote
I would think you could setup your router to mac address clone.. then change the mac address to whatever you want and put it in the 360 config http://rcc.bgsu.edu/info/Xbox_360_MAC_Address

as long as they didn't delete your account- then be careful not to play games early.. they probably can't see the hardware mod on their end.. it's more like what was mentioned, playing games early or playing bad copies

I don't have a console anymore.. sold years ago
groove 15th November 2009, 17:05 Quote
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16823
Sounds a bit complicated, but not too bad I guess.
Thedarkrage 15th November 2009, 21:04 Quote
Well as far as i know GAME isn't testing to see if the console is band or not but that could have changed over the weekend :( but its a great way to make ppl buy a new one wounder if that's what Microsoft was really thinking?
PureSilver 16th November 2009, 12:24 Quote
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft thought of that as an upside. I'm personally surprised anyone having been banned from Live would pay for another console - stuff ain't cheap! The gaming community must be really damn good to get that kind of devotion.

Incidentally (please, please just humour me this once) a fair bit of the EULA has never been challenged in the courts because it would indeed be contrary to UCTA; provisions relevant to resale and 'public performance' I suspect would top the list.
NuTech 16th November 2009, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureSilver
Incidentally (please, please just humour me this once) a fair bit of the EULA has never been challenged in the courts because it would indeed be contrary to UCTA; provisions relevant to resale and 'public performance' I suspect would top the list.
Indeed. Quite a few posters in this thread are confusing British piracy laws (which include criminal offences) with EULA (a private contract between the customer and copyright holder).

If you were to break one of the terms in a EULA, it would be a civil matter and you could be sued. As PureSilver has so rightly said, this is when said terms would have to be tested in court, with the copyright owner proving a reasonable agreement was broken.

There has been numerous examples of outlandish EULA terms, some even going against local laws. Often these are quickly drawn up documents (usually authored not by a legal secretary, not a lawyer/solicitor) with the sole aim of covering as many bases as possible, with fair use laws being an afterthought.

M7ck's post may be hyperbole, but he makes a good point. A EULA could effectively ask you for anything, taking full advantage of the fact that a very small percentage of people actually read them. Whether or not they would take you to court over it is a very different matter.

This is exactly why loaning, selling or giving away a game does not make you a pirate or a theif, even though it goes against most EULA. It's also the same reason chains like GAME can freely sell second hand games without fear of repercussion, as there isn't a court in the country that would side against them.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums