PS2 to drop to $99?

[Gatekeeper]

Dudes. Chill.

[Asher]

It's Canada in October, what do you think I'm doing?

[Gatekeeper]

Firing up a blowtorch in an ingloo?

[Asher]

Squashing the pesky insects that try to come into the warm house for the winter.

[Gatekeeper]

AWWW. You got the Asian lady bugs, too, huh? Aren't they just adorable? Same with thos box elder bugs! Except the former bite and the latter stink when you squash 'em.

[Drake Tungsten]

You've got it all -- a tiny shack in an overpopulated country, an IQ well below the world average, and a job that pays a couple grand a year to teach rudimentary English to foreigners.

Even after this, I'm still not going to stoop to your level. Making fun of your ugly boyfriend would be the act of a little man, which I am not.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Asher
And why should you give a ****?

You've got it all -- a tiny shack in an overpopulated country, an IQ well below the world average, and a job that pays a couple grand a year to teach rudimentary English to foreigners.

Hey, watch the crossfire!

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Asher
Read the license -- it's not your property, and it certainly is illegal as it breaks the terms of use that you agreed to when you opened the box.

Bull****, Asher. Complete, utter, FUD-induced MS bull****, that has no backing in any property or commercial law.

First of all, your use of the word "illegal" is completely wrong; it implies "criminal". The EULA is a contract, not a law, and there's nothing illegal or criminal about breaking a contract.

Second, what property and/or commercial law states that the moment I pay for a piece of hardware from the retailer, the previous owner of the hardware, who previously had bought & paid for that hardware from the wholesaler, that I do not become the sole owner of that hardware, assuming all the risk of loss of that hardware?

A commercial transaction that involves a one-time payment and a perpetual transfer of risk of loss of property is for all legal intents and purposes, a sale. Microsoft has no standing to redefine commercial transactions that they don't even partake in as something other than a sale of property. Even if they attempted to enforce the "no reverse engineering" provision of the license against someone hacking the box in the privacy of their own home, there's absolutely no basis to award damages on. My hacking of an XBox (I don't even own one, let's get that out of the way) does not in any way harm Microsoft's ability to sell the XBox. Hence no damages, hence no case.

Now distribution of any hacks I make, or even the means of how to hack, if it can be demonstrated that they'd harm MS's potential market, can be something to award damages on. If it's a more serious infringement of copyrighted MS material (i.e. distributing the contents of XBox's BIOS/ROM/whatever the hell it runs on), it may even be illegal and open the door to criminal proceedings if the authorities are so inclined (if there is no "fair use" defense of the copyright infringement). But there's no precedent whatsoever, no law whatsoever, that allows a corporation to dictate to consumers what they're allowed and not allowed to do with their private property. (Except maybe provisions in that damn DMCA. Thank goodness it don't apply in Canada ) Corporations can certainly waive liability if certain things are done to their products (i.e. refuse to fix your TV if you throw a hammer through it ), but that's a separate issue.

Hypothetical counter-example to prove this point: if a pair of jeans were to come with a "license" that says you haven't purchased those jeans, only a "license to wear" and you can't cut them into shorts after you buy them, would that be enforceable? Exact same principle -- vendor attempting to set limits on what you can & can't do with your property after you've purchased it.

This "you only buy a license" fallacy is bad enough for software sales; but it's even more lunatic when applied to hardware. IANAL, but it's pretty easy to see through FUD-BS when you have even a basic grasp of the applicable laws (and you're not an MS zealot ).

[Q Classic]

well, breaking a contract is illegal, else sco wouldn't be trying to take ibm to court so that they could lose and be hated by the rest of the world.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Asher
If you connect to Xbox Live with a modded Xbox, you're permanently banned from the service.

thats why i have 2 xbox

[Datajack Franit]

Even after this, I'm still not going to stoop to your level. Making fun of your ugly boyfriend would be the act of a little man, which I am not

That was very rude and someone should report you

[Asher]

Originally posted by optimus2861
Bull****, Asher. Complete, utter, FUD-induced MS bull****, that has no backing in any property or commercial law.

Perhaps you should read the DMCA and what it entails before calling me a moron.

In addition to it violating tort law by modding the box, the DMCA explicitly forbids actively getting around hardware copy protection, which is precisely what a mod chip does.

And I'm also unsure why you'd think it's bull**** that it's illegal when shops that sell them get shut down in the US and Canada. Shouldn't that be a big hint for you?

[Az]

I think it's pathetic that people descend to this level over computers, and electronics.

[Q Classic]

btw, just because the dcma is law, doesn't mean that it's a good law, asher.

mod chips are of dubious legality; but relying the dcma to enforce it...

dcma

[Asher]

Who said it was a good law?

I just said it was law.