XBOX360 Ban (modded consoles) class action lawsuit - update - I got my stuff back :D

[skaar]

http://www.abingtonlaw.com/Xbox-Live-class-action.html

I thought I'd share. I don't see it going anywhere but I wish them all the best. They do raise some good points on the timing of this ban.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While the timing is certainly opportunistic for Microsoft, they still have every right to ban at their discretion.

While I haven't read the TOS for XBL, I'm sure that if you're banned for console modification or software piracy that you forfeit any right to a pro-rated refund of membership costs.

[Porksta]

IIRC they do not ban the gamertag, just the system so you shouldn't have to worry about losing your subscription.

Oh noez, my Xbox was banned right before the game of the year came out! How could you do that Microsoft?

Lol.

[kupomogli]

People know the risks of modding a console. Microsoft shouldn't be required to prorate your XBL account just because you're not following the rules. It's also a guarantee that many of these people with modded systems were pirating software(I'd say probably 90% were.)

[BetaWolf47]

"Oh no, we can't get Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for free! Let's sue Microsoft!" Yep, this isn't going anywhere.

[Porksta]

1) How would sales of the games been affected? Most of those people would not have been playing legit copies anyways.

2) Microsoft has made it clear that they only ban consoles (like they reset gamerscore) when they are 100% certain the TOS have been violated. In no way has any Xbox 360 owner been unjustly banned.

I like how the site uses quotes and italics in an effort to act like Microsoft is the bad guy.

[Clownzilla]

The real winner of this case will be the lawyers in charge of "being there for the downtrodden gamer".

[s1lence]

This lawsuit is fail as are 99.9% of all the people saying they are going to file a lawsuit against MS on xbox.com. It is THEIR service that you CHOOSE to use so they can have whatever TOS that they see fit.

[jcalder8]

The real winner of this case will be the lawyers in charge of "being there for the downtrodden gamer".
The lawyers won't be getting anything from this. The lawyers would only get payed if they won and there is no way any money will be coming from this useless lawsuit.

[dylan0228]

What a joke!

[TonyTheTiger]

The only legal avenue that may be possible is attacking Microsoft's interest in the user purchased console itself. Though that requires a concession in part that Microsoft is allowed to ban people on Live whenever the hell it feels like it. I can envision an argument that goes something like this. "Microsoft is fully within its rights to ban users from participating in its ongoing online service. But the extent of the ban in this case goes beyond that and cripples the console's ability to function in ways completely separate from the online component thus diminishing the value of the machine by causing irreparable damage to it."

The difficulty with this argument is that it would require a direct attack on the idea of a hardware license agreement and would in fact be implicitly arguing that the purchaser actually owns the machine and as such Microsoft, while allowed to restrict users from accessing an ongoing online service via that machine, cannot actually destroy the machine which is the private property of the consumer. It would have to be an argument comparing it to a situation like, oh, a message board not only banning you from posting but actually screwing up your computer in the process. Granted, this kind of thing with licenses is controversial and by no means set in stone either way. But a lawsuit would require more than just the standard "waah waah, u lamerz!"

[heybtbm]

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8528/wambulance.jpg

[Porksta]

The only legal avenue that may be possible is attacking Microsoft's interest in the user purchased console itself. I can envision an argument that goes something like this. "Microsoft is fully within its rights to ban users from participating in its ongoing online service. But the extent of the ban in this case goes beyond that and cripples the console's ability to function in ways completely separate from the online component thus diminishing the value of the machine by causing irreparable damage to it."

The difficulty with this argument is that it would require a direct attack on the idea of a hardware license agreement and would in fact be implicitly arguing that the purchaser actually owns the machine and as such Microsoft, while allowed to restrict users from accessing an ongoing online service via that machine, cannot actually destroy the machine which is the private property of the consumer. Granted, this kind of thing is controversial and by no means set in stone either way. But a lawsuit would require more than just the standard "waah waah, u lamerz!"

The thing is, the consoles work fine. They just can't go online.

[TonyTheTiger]

Do they? From what I've heard there's other functionality not related to Xbox Live that's screwed around with.

[Bojay1997]

Do they? From what I've heard there's other functionality not related to Xbox Live that's screwed around with.

Nope. The only thing this ban did is prevent users from accessing Xbox Live. That's why the legal experts who have weighed in so far are fairly certain this case is a non-starter. Let's be clear here, courts have allowed cable and satellite companies to fire electronic "bullets" to destroy illegal cable and satellite descramblers and the police to destroy drug growing equipment, so this far more minimal ban on allowing 360 users engaged in illegal activity to access a paid subscription service which nobody has a right to access anyway without Microsoft's on-going permission is not an argument which can be won. The timing makes absolutely no difference and the fact that this law firm is focusing on that non-issue leads me to doubt that they really understand what is going on here. I suspect their "client" came to them and said Microsoft banned them from a paid subscription service and failed to mention they were engaged in felony software piracy.

[skaar]

I was banned on one of my consoles. I'd modded it a year or so ago and put a WD 160GB 2.5 SATA drive in there, flashed to look like a 120GB Microsoft official drive. I found out later that I didn't need to modify the firmware on the DVDROM to do it, but I assumed I did anyway.

This particular system never booted a burned game. It ran nothing but originals. It was also banned on The End Day.

By modifying my console (ie upgrading the hard drive myself) I violated the TOS and my console was banned from Live. Fair enough, I'll take the hit.

Where *I* got pissed off was all of the saved games on the hard drive were suddenly "corrupted" - I could not copy them to memory card and move them to another console. This was an issue for about two games where I hadn't moved stuff over. (this wasn't my main console and had moved most things off it ages ago)

Mainly I was choked I lost my Viva Pinata garden ;)

Essentially, Microsoft destroyed data on my hard drive. I think this is where the lawsuit is coming from. All of my XBLA titles that were licensed to that console were also disabled and reverted to trials. I think this is where people have a legit beef. Ban the console from your service, fine. But fuck up all of my saved games? Kill all the stuff I actually spent MONEY on because the online service they don't require to run is no longer available? The hell with you, buddy.

Don't label everyone who's "modded" their Xbox as a pirate. Because I bet there are a lot of people out there getting fucked over on this too. I probably buy more of their software than a significant amount of their customers and I refused to bend over on marked up hardware... and I took a hit for it. Such is life. I've moved on - but I will cheer for anyone willing to stand up and drag them through the mud for what they've done... but I'll do it out of spite, not morality ;)

The banned console is now making a family who could not have afforded a 360 very happy... along with a spindle of dual layer DVD-R blanks.

[Porksta]

^^Are you not allowed to redownload the Arcade games onto a legit HDD?

So basically if you illegally modify a car and it gets impounded, you should sue because all the driving, and gas, and work you put into all go to squat? Sorry, shouldn't have illegally modified it.

[TonyTheTiger]

Let's be clear here, courts have allowed cable and satellite companies to fire electronic "bullets" to destroy illegal cable and satellite descramblers and the police to destroy drug growing equipment

Which are either gray market or flat out illegal anyway. I've been hearing that the banned 360s are being damaged more than simply not being able to connect to Xbox Live. If that's true there might be some possible argument that Microsoft overstepped its authority. But, again, that depends on whether or not the user owns the Xbox. If he does then while MS can prevent this person from using the Xbox to access an online service, the company cannot destroy this person's perfectly legal private property. That was part of the argument over Sony's rootkit scandal. There was harm being caused to people's private property beyond piracy prevention.


^^Are you not allowed to redownload the Arcade games onto a legit HDD?

So basically if you illegally modify a car and it gets impounded, you should sue because all the driving, and gas, and work you put into all go to squat? Sorry, shouldn't have illegally modified it.

Is the modification itself illegal? Or, rather, should it be? That's at the heart of the current legal debate at the moment and we'll probably see more cases raising the issue. Let's assume MS went a step further and instead of banning the console they actually repossessed it because the licensee violated the license by modifying it. Would that be legal? Theoretically, under the same practice as I think is happening now it would be. But the legal battle there would be perfectly justified. It's still a controversial question. "How much of what I buy do I own?"

[Steve W]

Essentially, Microsoft destroyed data on my hard drive. I think this is where the lawsuit is coming from. All of my XBLA titles that were licensed to that console were also disabled and reverted to trials. I think this is where people have a legit beef. Ban the console from your service, fine. But fuck up all of my saved games? Kill all the stuff I actually spent MONEY on because the online service they don't require to run is no longer available? The hell with you, buddy.
How can Microsoft determine what files were from legitimate copies of games and which ones were from cracked downloaded games? They wanted to make it hard for you to move your data over to another machine and start up again pirating games, I'd guess.

What kills me is that nobody makes you go online with your 360, it's not necessary. I've never hooked mine up to the internet and have no interest in doing so. I don't like the kind of people I would be playing with (and on my own admission, I'm totally antisocial from working retail for so many years) and these people throwing a fit that they can't go on Xbox Live anymore because they were screwing Microsoft out of money by pirating games are exactly the type of people I don't want to interact with. Maybe with people actually paying for their games perhaps development studios can make a few more bucks and stay in business a little longer instead of dying off at an insane rate like they've been doing for the past few years.

[Buyatari]

Which are either gray market or flat out illegal anyway. I've been hearing that the banned 360s are being damaged more than simply not being able to connect to Xbox Live. If that's true there might be some possible argument that Microsoft overstepped its authority. But, again, that depends on whether or not the user owns the Xbox. If he does then while MS can prevent this person from using the Xbox to access an online service, the company cannot destroy this person's perfectly legal private property. That was part of the argument over Sony's rootkit scandal. There was harm being caused to people's private property beyond piracy prevention.



Is the modification itself illegal? Or, rather, should it be? That's at the heart of the current legal debate at the moment and we'll probably see more cases raising the issue. Let's assume MS went a step further and instead of banning the console they actually repossessed it because the licensee violated the license by modifying it. Would that be legal? Theoretically, under the same practice as I think is happening now it would be. But the legal battle there would be perfectly justified. It's still a controversial question. "How much of what I buy do I own?"

cicumvention of encryption is illegal

[TonyTheTiger]

But what is the proper legal result of that circumvention? That's the question. Can MS come to your door and take the 360 from you? That might be the logical extension of them destroying the console's functionality. Granted, the thing can still play games so it's probably moot even if some other fringe functions are disabled but I wonder if this went a little further if it would still be within the law.

[kai123]

What kills me is that nobody makes you go online with your 360, it's not necessary. I've never hooked mine up to the internet and have no interest in doing so. I don't like the kind of people I would be playing with (and on my own admission, I'm totally antisocial from working retail for so many years) and these people throwing a fit that they can't go on Xbox Live anymore because they were screwing Microsoft out of money by pirating games are exactly the type of people I don't want to interact with. Maybe with people actually paying for their games perhaps development studios can make a few more bucks and stay in business a little longer instead of dying off at an insane rate like they've been doing for the past few years.

I am betting that most of these companies that have been closing is the result of the economy and the shitty games they have put out lately. Most of the "good" ones were bought up before they closed.

[TonyTheTiger]

There's no question that piracy can take a toll but, in general, it's really hard to determine exactly how much harm is done because of it. The measurement is less about how much piracy is out there in total and more about how many people who are pirates would actually buy the product if the piracy option weren't available. That's damn near impossible to figure out.

[Berserker]

Where *I* got pissed off was all of the saved games on the hard drive were suddenly "corrupted" - I could not copy them to memory card and move them to another console. This was an issue for about two games where I hadn't moved stuff over. (this wasn't my main console and had moved most things off it ages ago)

Mainly I was choked I lost my Viva Pinata garden ;)

Essentially, Microsoft destroyed data on my hard drive. I think this is where the lawsuit is coming from. All of my XBLA titles that were licensed to that console were also disabled and reverted to trials. I think this is where people have a legit beef. Ban the console from your service, fine. But fuck up all of my saved games? Kill all the stuff I actually spent MONEY on because the online service they don't require to run is no longer available? The hell with you, buddy.

Don't label everyone who's "modded" their Xbox as a pirate. Because I bet there are a lot of people out there getting fucked over on this too. I probably buy more of their software than a significant amount of their customers and I refused to bend over on marked up hardware... and I took a hit for it. Such is life. I've moved on - but I will cheer for anyone willing to stand up and drag them through the mud for what they've done... but I'll do it out of spite, not morality ;)

The banned console is now making a family who could not have afforded a 360 very happy... along with a spindle of dual layer DVD-R blanks.

I can't help but take some issue with this. Microsoft has the right to ban you from their service for violating their TOS, but destruction of property is another matter.

If these guys want us to consider digital property the same as physical property when they're selling us the stuff, then they should be prepared to be held accountable for what basically amounts to vandalism, and in the case of the legitimately purchased XBLA titles, possibly theft.

[skaar]

I can't help but take some issue with this. Microsoft has the right to ban you from their service for violating their TOS, but destruction of property is another matter.

If these guys want us to consider digital property the same as physical property when they're selling us the stuff, then they should be prepared to be held accountable for what basically amounts to vandalism, and in the case of the legitimately purchased XBLA titles, possibly theft.

All of my XBLA titles were bought legit, either with points bought through CC or retail points cards. I'm all cool with them banning my console for the DVDROM hack, sure. But for not paying the premium for a hard drive they're overcharging for? OEM cost on a 120GB 2.5" HD is like < $50, why the fuck would I pay $130 for the same thing? It's like that 512MB memory card. Seriously. Drop the price based on current market rates for memory, assholes.

I summon the power of kupomogli here and point out with the PS3 I have NO issue just popping in a larger HD. That being said, I keep the 60GB in there because I never use the damn PS3 anyway. ;)

It's probably the rum talking anyway :D

COCKS!

[Icarus Moonsight]

I can't help but take some issue with this. Microsoft has the right to ban you from their service for violating their TOS, but destruction of property is another matter.

If these guys want us to consider digital property the same as physical property when they're selling us the stuff, then they should be prepared to be held accountable for what basically amounts to vandalism, and in the case of the legitimately purchased XBLA titles, possibly theft.

Couldn't agree more. Ban whoever you want, but don't mess with their stuff. That crosses a line. Reminds me of a Sony trojan of days past...

[Porksta]

If you don't want to pay the prices Microsoft has set - then don't. Speak with your wallet. The fact that people are using illegal hard drives just shows Microsoft that people want to play their 360.

[jcalder8]

All of my XBLA titles were bought legit, either with points bought through CC or retail points cards.
So what did MS say when you called to ask them about it?

If MS is smart they will say that you just need to provide proof that you bought the games and they will send them to your new account.

[Bojay1997]

There's no question that piracy can take a toll but, in general, it's really hard to determine exactly how much harm is done because of it. The measurement is less about how much piracy is out there in total and more about how many people who are pirates would actually buy the product if the piracy option weren't available. That's damn near impossible to figure out.

That's probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard about piracy. There is no requirement under the law to do a survey and find out who would or wouldn't have bought something anyway if it wasn't for the illegal activity. It's like saying we shouldn't punish arson just because a really crappy trailer park burned down or car theft because the owner was planning on buying a new car anyway in a few months. Everyone who modded their consoles knew they were violating Microsoft's terms of service and did it anyway. As such, they are stuck with the consequences.

[Porksta]

That's probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard about piracy. There is no requirement under the law to do a survey and find out who would or wouldn't have bought something anyway if it wasn't for the illegal activity. It's like saying we shouldn't punish arson just because a really crappy trailer park burned down or car theft because the owner was planning on buying a new car anyway in a few months. Everyone who modded their consoles knew they were violating Microsoft's terms of service and did it anyway. As such, they are stuck with the consequences.

This.

[TonyTheTiger]

That's probably the dumbest argument I've ever heard about piracy. There is no requirement under the law to do a survey and find out who would or wouldn't have bought something anyway if it wasn't for the illegal activity. It's like saying we shouldn't punish arson just because a really crappy trailer park burned down or car theft because the owner was planning on buying a new car anyway in a few months. Everyone who modded their consoles knew they were violating Microsoft's terms of service and did it anyway. As such, they are stuck with the consequences.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was stating a fact about the measurement of loss, not making an argument that piracy is no big deal or that it shouldn't be aggressively challenged by publishers. I was saying, if you would actually read what I wrote, that the actual numbers require a lot of guesswork. You going to argue that with me?

EDIT: This is not about people getting banned from Live. That is the consequence, fine. The question is whether punitive action beyond that is legitimate action. You can keep saying "they violated the TOS and so have to live with the consequences" but, logically speaking, those consequences need to be reasonable. The location of that line is debatable at best. Microsoft may be allowed to screw you over but how much can they screw you over?

[s1lence]

I'm really confused here about the arguement with the XBLA games. It doesn't sound like your account is banned, JUST the modded xbox. You can put your account with all the points on a new system and redownload the games.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I was banned on one of my consoles. I'd modded it a year or so ago and put a WD 160GB 2.5 SATA drive in there, flashed to look like a 120GB Microsoft official drive. I found out later that I didn't need to modify the firmware on the DVDROM to do it, but I assumed I did anyway.

This particular system never booted a burned game. It ran nothing but originals. It was also banned on The End Day.

By modifying my console (ie upgrading the hard drive myself) I violated the TOS and my console was banned from Live. Fair enough, I'll take the hit.

Where *I* got pissed off was all of the saved games on the hard drive were suddenly "corrupted" - I could not copy them to memory card and move them to another console. This was an issue for about two games where I hadn't moved stuff over. (this wasn't my main console and had moved most things off it ages ago)

Mainly I was choked I lost my Viva Pinata garden ;)

Essentially, Microsoft destroyed data on my hard drive. I think this is where the lawsuit is coming from. All of my XBLA titles that were licensed to that console were also disabled and reverted to trials. I think this is where people have a legit beef. Ban the console from your service, fine. But fuck up all of my saved games? Kill all the stuff I actually spent MONEY on because the online service they don't require to run is no longer available? The hell with you, buddy.

Don't label everyone who's "modded" their Xbox as a pirate. Because I bet there are a lot of people out there getting fucked over on this too. I probably buy more of their software than a significant amount of their customers and I refused to bend over on marked up hardware... and I took a hit for it. Such is life. I've moved on - but I will cheer for anyone willing to stand up and drag them through the mud for what they've done... but I'll do it out of spite, not morality ;)

The banned console is now making a family who could not have afforded a 360 very happy... along with a spindle of dual layer DVD-R blanks.

That kind of punitive punishment by MS doesn't surprise me in the least.

We're talking about a company that doesn't want you playing -

Legitimately purchased digital download games,
residing on a legitimate Microsoft hard drive,
attached to a legitimately purchased console,
with your paid Gold XBL Membership on it

JUST because a user has already transferred their "license" ONE TIME in a 365 day period.

I personally broke ZERO copyright laws and I had to wait a YEAR to play more than half the games on my HDD when my last 360 crapped out on me because I didn't want to use their repair services and opted to buy a new Arcade Jasper HDMI unit.

I don't typically like to view/refer to any company as a sentient entity as people are prone to do, but it should be no secret to anybody that Microsoft is one heartless bitch when it comes to kicking people when they're down.

[kupomogli]

Essentially, Microsoft destroyed data on my hard drive. I think this is where the lawsuit is coming from. All of my XBLA titles that were licensed to that console were also disabled and reverted to trials.


I'm really confused here about the arguement with the XBLA games. It doesn't sound like your account is banned, JUST the modded xbox. You can put your account with all the points on a new system and redownload the games.

Skaar. It sucks, but why not just buy another 360 and port all your stuff over. Then you could still use your harddrive as long as you don't mod your new 360 I'm guessing.

[Pente]

The thing is, the consoles work fine. They just can't go online.

Unfortunately that's not true. In addition to not being able to play legitimately bought DLC, As mentioned above they alter the 360 in a number of ways.

The Windows Media Server integration is disabled (although video library streaming is not) The local data on the hard drive is forceably corrupted, including the gamer profile and your hard drive installed games. Loading games on the hard drive is disabled completely. So, that essentially makes the large hard drive useless on that 360.

You can move that hard drive to another 360.. however, the catch is once you remove it from the banned one, it further neuters that 360 as a media player since all the DRM is on the hard drive and it can no longer play any USB loaded xvids, etc. So essentially that particular hard drive becomes a dongle tethered to your banned 360 if you want to play any media on it.

About the only thing you can do with it is play games, but once you save a game on it.. it's there to stay and can never leave :p

[Porksta]

Unfortunately that's not true. In addition to not being able to play legitimately bought DLC, As mentioned above they alter the 360 in a number of ways.

The Windows Media Server integration is disabled (although video library streaming is not) The local data on the hard drive is forceably corrupted, including the gamer profile and your hard drive installed games. Loading games on the hard drive is disabled completely. So, that essentially makes the large hard drive useless on that 360.

You can move that hard drive to another 360.. however, the catch is once you remove it from the banned one, it further neuters that 360 as a media player since all the DRM is on the hard drive and it can no longer play any USB loaded xvids, etc. So essentially that particular hard drive becomes a dongle tethered to your banned 360 if you want to play any media on it.

About the only thing you can do with it is play games, but once you save a game on it.. it's there to stay and can never leave :p

Oh well, I have no remorse for people that bypass rules because they think they are better than everyone else.

[TonyTheTiger]

Oh well, I have no remorse for people that bypass rules because they think they are better than everyone else.

At some point, punishment can go too far and actually become illegal (or at least tortious) in the process.

[Porksta]

At some point, punishment can go too far and actually become illegal (or at least tortious) in the process.

If you don't break the rules you have nothing to fear. The only ones who fear/condemn punishment are the ones violating the rules.

[TonyTheTiger]

If you don't break the rules you have nothing to fear. The only ones who fear/condemn punishment are the ones violating the rules.

That's a nice soundbyte but it fails for the simple fact that in all legal matters there are limits imposed by law. No court ever OKs a law on the grounds that "if you don't break it you have nothing to fear." In the criminal realm, the Constitution sets the limits. With something like contracts, there are rules regulating whether the terms were unconscionable among other things.

Those are just examples but the point is that there's never a time where it's ok for an unjust rule to stand simply because "if you don't break it, you have nothing to fear." Could Microsoft come and take the 360 from the person? Should the company be allowed to do that? If we believe we have some personal private interest in the property (as in, we're not simply borrowing it) then no.

[Porksta]

That's a nice soundbyte but it fails for the simple fact that in all legal matters there are limits imposed by law. No court ever OKs a law on the grounds that "if you don't break it you have nothing to fear." In the criminal realm, the Constitution sets the limits. With something like contracts, there are rules regulating whether the terms were unconscionable among other things. Could Microsoft come and take the 360 from the person? Should the company be allowed to do that?

Microsoft should not take away modded 360s from people. The government should. It is illegal to own a device used to play stolen games.

[TonyTheTiger]

That's an oversimplification. At one point, Sony (I believe it was Sony) got sued because it was selling VCRs. The argument was that Sony was selling a device that was being used to violate copyrights (ala, tape record TV shows). The court sided with Sony on the grounds that, although that use of a VCR might be problematic, the device itself served other purposes beyond copyright infringement. I think we can agree that an Xbox 360, even a modified one, can serve more purposes than playing copied games. Granted, I'm not nearly naive enough to think that most people aren't using it for that and that alone but the "infringing device" is really the modchip rather than the entire console. And in the case of software mods, well, that's another can of worms.

But nobody can come and actually take the entire system away. What can happen, and this is what happened to Lik-Sang, is the courts can go after people and companies selling modchips on the grounds that those devices don't serve a non-infringing purpose, unlike a VCR. Microsoft might be allowed to do what cable providers do and send a signal that renders the infringing hardware (the modchip) nonfunctional. In fact, firmware updates have been used to do things like that. But there are limits to what they can do. A cable provider, for instance, can't send a signal that not only fries the descrambler but also destroys the TV set it's attached to.

[Porksta]

I understand where you are coming from. It didn't occur to me that people using these modded 360s can also, if they choose, play legit games.

But to get back on topic, all Microsoft did was disable the systems that are illegaly (according to the TOS) modified in any way, shape or form. For that reason, and that reason alone, the people have no case and I do not pity anyone that was affected by Microsoft's decision. Again, if they had simply followed the rules, they would have no problems. A vast majority of 360 owners have had no problems obeying the rules set forth.

[Bojay1997]

That's an oversimplification. At one point, Sony (I believe it was Sony) got sued because it was selling VCRs. The argument was that Sony was selling a device that was being used to violate copyrights (ala, tape record TV shows). The court sided with Sony on the grounds that, although that use of a VCR might be problematic, the device itself served other purposes beyond copyright infringement. I think we can agree that an Xbox 360, even a modified one, can serve more purposes than playing copied games. Granted, I'm not nearly naive enough to think that most people aren't using it for that and that alone but the "infringing device" is really the modchip rather than the entire console. And in the case of software mods, well, that's another can of worms.

But nobody can come and actually take the entire system away. What can happen, and this is what happened to Lik-Sang, is the courts can go after people and companies selling modchips on the grounds that those devices don't serve a non-infringing purpose, unlike a VCR. Microsoft might be allowed to do what cable providers do and send a signal that renders the infringing hardware (the modchip) nonfunctional. In fact, firmware updates have been used to do things like that. But there are limits to what they can do. A cable provider, for instance, can't send a signal that not only fries the descrambler but also destroys the TV set it's attached to.


On the cable example, you're missing the point that the cable companies are allowed to fry (i.e destroy or take by your reasoning) the illegal box. The cable companies didn't provide those boxes, people bought them from third party vendors. Microsoft is actually doing far less here since people can still use their Xbox 360 to play legit games.

[skaar]

Oh well, I have no remorse for people that bypass rules because they think they are better than everyone else.

It's not a matter of being "better than everyone else" - I think you've somehow inferred that on your own here. I was playing legit games on a modded console.

My point is I did something that was technically feasible but that they didn't want me to do - upgrade my hard drive on my own. And yes, they have a "rule" about me doing so. I still don't feel the rule is fair, however. But what can you do?

And to clear up a possible misunderstanding here, I have 3 Xbox 360s. Well, 2 now. The other Pro is back in service fulltime and I have all of my games redownloaded and fully functional on there. Well, I shouldn't say all. The 20GB that came with it is full, and I can't get all of my DLC on there. So to add to this whole thing, it looks like I'm going to have to spring for that overpriced hard drive ANYWAY ;)

So as I've said before - I don't hate them for banning my console, I think that's perfectly within their rights to do. But I hate them for killing all my saved games and purchased XBLA titles on that console.

Plus as mentioned, the media streaming doesn't work since you have to be signed into live to use it (??) - maybe they just want to track file names people play to report back to someone :P

The sting of not actually OWNING games I've bought just became a lot more real. It'll be really fun when it's the only way to buy things... violate their TOS by insulting the wrong person in a Halo match and they kill your collection? This is cool? DLC ftw.

[Porksta]

On the cable example, you're missing the point that the cable companies are allowed to fry (i.e destroy or take by your reasoning) the illegal box. The cable companies didn't provide those boxes, people bought them from third party vendors. Microsoft is actually doing far less here since people can still use their Xbox 360 to play legit games.

The wording was a little weird but I think he said they can't fry the box and television, just the box.

[Porksta]

It's not a matter of being "better than everyone else" - I think you've somehow inferred that on your own here.

You felt like you were too important to have to buy an official 360 hard drive, so yes you felt like you were better than everyone and that the rules did not apply to you. You circumvented the rules that everyone else has to follow.


I did something that was technically feasible but that they didn't want me to do - upgrade my hard drive on my own. And yes, they have a "rule" about me doing so. I still don't feel the rule is fair, however. But what can you do?

Not buy a hard drive for the 360?


So as I've said before - I don't hate them for banning my console, I think that's perfectly within their rights to do. But I hate them for killing all my saved games and purchased XBLA titles. The sting of not actually OWNING games I've bought just became a lot more real. It'll be really fun when it's the only way to buy things... violate their TOS by insulting the wrong person in a Halo match and they kill your collection? This is cool?

As I have asked, are you not able to access your XBL account and redownload the games?

I have a bunch of stuff stored in a stolen car. If the car gets impounded would I feel bad about losing all that stuff? Yes, but I would have also known that eventually I would have been caught and been angry at no one but myself.

[skaar]

You felt like you were too important to have to buy an official 360 hard drive, so yes you felt like you were better than everyone and that the rules did not apply to you.

Again, you're being needlessly insulting about this. I had a spare 160GB and some time to install it. Your position is that if a company is overcharging for a product they are willingly not adjusting to meet market rates this is appropriate conduct? This is a hard drive, not the diamond industry ;)



As I have asked, are you not able to access your XBL account and redownload the games?


Yep, I've already answered that in an earlier post.


I have a bunch of stuff stored in a stolen car. If the car gets impounded would I feel bad about losing all that stuff? Yes, but I would have also known that eventually I would have been caught and been angry at no one but myself.

I think a more accurate description would be that I installed an after-market stereo in a new car and the dealer saw me driving around in it... then pushed a button to disable my stereo entirely because they were upset I didn't pay dealer markup ;)

Like I've said before, I'll take the hit and move on. But I do want people to be aware that it's not just the "dirty pirates" getting screwed on this, and it's not as simple a situation as they'd like it to be. The way Live is constructed and worked into the console, Microsoft has now established that they can not only ban you from their service.... they can kill your library.

I was not able to transfer anything off the console at all after the "bomb" hit - I was only able to recover to another console using the standard tool. Everything on that console is now toxic.

Anywho...

[NE146]

Oh well, I have no remorse for people that bypass rules because they think they are better than everyone else.

That's a pretty weak (and oddly insecure) statement to generalize people who have modified a console as "thinking they are better than everyone else". Even if true... so what? What do you think of people who think they are worse than everyone else. Are they to be lauded? :p Truth is, one really has nothing to do with the other.

Personally I have four 360's. I've modded two. I don't think I'm any better than anyone else anymore so than when I had my Turbografx able to play PCE games (ALSO against the rules I might add :) )

p.s. I've had no problems with my 360's. Knock on wood :angel:



Microsoft has now established that they can not only ban you from their service.... they can kill your library.

True enough. They really should've stuck to their old tactic and simply stop that console from playing online anymore. That's 100% enough.

[portnoyd]

You felt like you were too important to have to buy an official 360 hard drive, so yes you felt like you were better than everyone and that the rules did not apply to you. You circumvented the rules that everyone else has to follow.

Read it again. He put in one that was larger than what was available.

Your holier-than-thou routine is getting old.


I have a bunch of stuff stored in a stolen car. If the car gets impounded would I feel bad about losing all that stuff? Yes, but I would have also known that eventually I would have been caught and been angry at no one but myself.

Horrible example.

[8-bitNesMan]

You felt like you were too important to have to buy an official 360 hard drive, so yes you felt like you were better than everyone and that the rules did not apply to you. You circumvented the rules that everyone else has to follow.



Not buy a hard drive for the 360?



As I have asked, are you not able to access your XBL account and redownload the games?

I have a bunch of stuff stored in a stolen car. If the car gets impounded would I feel bad about losing all that stuff? Yes, but I would have also known that eventually I would have been caught and been angry at no one but myself.

If he is not using the bigger (and cheaper) hard drive to play pirated games, which he has stated he wasn't and I believe that, then what "law" is he breaking? Is that Microsoft Code 001-$$? -- "You have to buy our massively overpriced storage devices or face severe consequences including but not limited to losing legitimate content that you paid honest money for." I don't agree with piracy but I think you should be able to put any hard drive you want into YOUR own 360. Do PC makers penalize customers for modifying/upgrading their machines? The PC market THRIVES on people doing so. I think Skaar has a legitimate beef here.

[Porksta]

I never said he was using the larger hard drive to play pirated games. I just said that by installing a larger hard drive he was violating the TOS. Do I think people should be able to use any hard drive they want? Sure. However Microsoft does not, and since it is their system, why are they not allowed to set the rules? If you don't want to pay the prices Microsoft has set, then do not buy a hard drive for your 360. Microsoft was nice enough to include a hard drive with my 360, and I have yet to fill up even half of it.

Portnoyd - when I actually stop being holier than thou, then you have a reason to get upset. Until the time comes that I stop obeying the rules and laws set forth, then I can act however I want. Those that violate rules and laws will always be < than those that obey the rules and act like pricks.

And really, it is harder to break the rules than to obey them.

[portnoyd]

I never said he was using the larger hard drive to play pirated games. I just said that by installing a larger hard drive he was violating the TOS. Do I think people should be able to use any hard drive they want? Sure. However Microsoft does not, and since it is their system, why are they not allowed to set the rules? If you don't want to pay the prices Microsoft has set, then do not buy a hard drive for your 360. Microsoft was nice enough to include a hard drive with my 360, and I have yet to fill up even half of it.

I'll come from your school of awful examples: my car came stock with a gas tank that holds 2/3 of a gallon of gas. I can use it, but it runs out of gas several times before I get to work. However, I can buy a better gas tank that holds 5 gallons, but it costs 3x the price of a normal gas tank like the one that comes in kupomogli's car. This better tank still won't get me to work without running out. However, skaar offers me a normal priced gas tank that holds even more gas to replace the midget sized one I just got stock.

By your rules, I should be a good little boy and run out of gas on a daily basis.


Portnoyd - when I actually stop being holier than thou, then you have a reason to get upset. Until the time comes that I stop obeying the rules and laws set forth, then I can act however I want. Those that violate rules and laws will always be < than those that obey the rules and act like pricks.

It's really getting old now. I hope your head implodes the second you drive a mile over the speed limit.

[Porksta]

I'll come from your school of awful examples: my car came stock with a gas tank that holds 2/3 of a gallon of gas. I can use it, but it runs out of gas several times before I get to work. However, I can buy a better gas tank that holds 15 gallons, but it costs 3x the price of a normal gas tank like the one that comes in kupomogli's car. However, skaar offers me a normal priced bigger gas tank to replace the midget sized one I just got stock.



It's really getting old now. I hope your head implodes the second you drive a mile over the speed limit.

Actually I can drive up to 5mph because of variances in police speed guns. Or so I have been told. :)

[portnoyd]

Actually I can drive up to 5mph because of variances in police speed guns. Or so I have been told. :)

No, I'd just like your head to implode. Would save us from a lot of stupid examples and hypocritical nonsense.

[Shadow Kisuragi]

...the real problem here is that people with modded consoles of any magnitude are using Xbox Live. Microsoft may have stepped over the line with disabling console features and corrupting hard drive contents, but I would ensure that the TOS/EULA has not been updated to reflect this. Microsoft has a habit of updating the TOS/EULA without acknowledgement from the User.

Skaar,
You should have known that modding the hard drive would eventually result in a console ban, as this was previously done on Microsoft's last console, the Xbox. There's a reason you had to go out of your way to mask the drivers. If you're going to mod the hard drive, do so with the correct hard drive model at least (Western Digital 120GB SATA). Microsoft's premium sucks, as half the price is just the harness.

Porksta & portnoyd,
Can we get back to the topic at hand please?

Also, Porksta, rules are indeed flexible as you've pointed out. I've been pulled over for "reckless driving" because I accelerated too quickly after stopping at a stop sign because the officer was bored, but I wasn't breaking any laws. You can break the law without actually breaking it. That's essentially the point at hand for Skaar - he broke the terms by using a non-Microsoft branded HDD, but did not do something that deserved having all of his saves destroyed.

Microsoft's view of escalation bites...stay off Xbox Live if you don't want Microsoft involved. This is why Xfire was a popular alternative to Xbox Live.

[TonyTheTiger]

However Microsoft does not, and since it is their system, why are they not allowed to set the rules?

Because it might not be their system. They have an interest in the console not being used to violate copyrights (and can choose who has permission to access their ongoing online service) but who actually has ownership over the individual machine has been a contant headache. Microsoft would love to be able to argue that the company is always the owner while the end user is a licensee who is effectively borrowing the hardware until the license either runs out or is voided in some way.

This is, of course, a logical leap because clearly Microsoft isn't going to go around to collect 360s from people when the console dies off. But, nevertheless, that's the legal reality MS would want to see. Anybody with the least bit of libertarian sensibilities, however, would argue that's bullshit. "I bought it, I own it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a fucking duck."


Portnoyd - when I actually stop being holier than thou, then you have a reason to get upset. Until the time comes that I stop obeying the rules and laws set forth, then I can act however I want. Those that violate rules and laws will always be < than those that obey the rules and act like pricks.

And really, it is harder to break the rules than to obey them.

Wow. Serious question. Did you tattle a lot as a child? No joke, this kind of thinking is why a lot of unjust laws in history were allowed to last for as long as they did and why good men and women paid harsh penalties for standing up for what was right. Excuse the inflammatory example, but would you say that to a 19th century runaway slave?


Actually I can drive up to 5mph because of variances in police speed guns. Or so I have been told. :)

So what's the lesson here? Never break a rule...unless you know you can get away with it?

[skaar]

Skaar,
You should have known that modding the hard drive would eventually result in a console ban, as this was previously done on Microsoft's last console, the Xbox. There's a reason you had to go out of your way to mask the drivers. If you're going to mod the hard drive, do so with the correct hard drive model at least (Western Digital 120GB SATA). Microsoft's premium sucks, as half the price is just the harness.

Oh I know - the issue was that it's the exact same process to reprogram the drive - it's using information from a 120GB retail drive to mask the drive to use only 120GB of it. I was tight on space and my 360 was scraping disks from time to time, so I replaced the HD to cache games to the HD and fit all that Fallout 3 DLC. And all I had available was a 160GB Blue Scorpio (still an acceptable option)

Porksta, I can agree with your beef about people just using things like this for piracy. That's fair and kills the industry. I work in the games industry, I know what effects piracy has on sales.

The point I was trying to make was that I think what I was doing was arguably a reasonable alternative to shelling out full price for a big HD. I didn't steal a car, I did a modification they didn't like because it didn't fit within their product strategy. I was quite pleased with the stereo analogy, I'd like it if you at least acknowledged it ;)

The modded 360 has found a good home and the people who got it from me have been burning a pile of games for their kids since they've received it. Microsoft just made a family's christmas and I'm glad to have made them happy too ;)

Surely not what they'd hoped for as a result, but it's the least I can do :D

[ScourDX]

I think swapping HD for cheaper HD is the same as using 3rd party controller. Imagine Microsoft ban you from using XBL just because they find using 3rd party controller allows you to cheat on XBL. That never happens, but still swapping HD should be allowed and I don't see the reason to ban. Sure it allows to play backup and such, but is it there a format function in the unit itself?

[portnoyd]

Porksta & portnoyd, Can we get back to the topic at hand please?

Potentially.

To anyone who modded and pirated, what'd you expect?

To people like skaar, a blanket zero tolerance ban sucks but I guess it was the risk you took. Considering that Sony lets you swap HDs, it's even more a shame.

Let's get dorky: I think Porksta's problem is he fronts that he is lawful good and we're all neutral good. The law is all well and good, but it was created by people with agendas different than yours. In skaar's case, MS wants money, skaar doesn't want to spend the money MS wants him to.

[badinsults]

I removed the tabs from my Super Nintendo so that I could play Super Famicom games.

According to Porksta I should be lynched for breaking Nintendo's license agreement.

But if you observe the way Sony destroyed Lik Sang, these companies don't even want you importing a foreign console to play these games. In essence, the major video companies want their cake and eat it too. There are legitimate reasons to mod your consoles (for example to play imports or in skaar's case, to cheaply add in a larger hard drive). These purposes are not illegal in Canada, although the DCMA in the US makes this a greyer area. You can be all boy scoutish about this and say that "you broke the agreement, therefore you shall pay the price". And certainly MS has the right to disable the modded consoles from connecting to their network. However, that is not an excuse to destroy your data. That is a dangerous legal precedent, and if you remember the debacle with Sony selling music CDs with trojans on them, probably would be deemed illegal.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I removed the tabs from my Super Nintendo so that I could play Super Famicom games.

According to Porksta I should be lynched for breaking Nintendo's license agreement.

But if you observe the way Sony destroyed Lik Sang, these companies don't even want you importing a foreign console to play these games. In essence, the major video companies want their cake and eat it too. There are legitimate reasons to mod your consoles (for example to play imports or in skaar's case, to cheaply add in a larger hard drive). These purposes are not illegal in Canada, although the DCMA in the US makes this a greyer area. You can be all boy scoutish about this and say that "you broke the agreement, therefore you shall pay the price". And certainly MS has the right to disable the modded consoles from connecting to their network. However, that is not an excuse to destroy your data. That is a dangerous legal precedent, and if you remember the debacle with Sony selling music CDs with trojans on them, probably would be deemed illegal.

While NO company wants consumers importing at lower prices due to differences in currency values of other countries - Perhaps Sony saw the error of their ways in past generations when they realized that people taking steps to mod for imports in almost every case opens the door to play pirated games, as the PSP and PS3 are both region free devices for current gen software. (Though not for movies.)

Just speculation, but maybe it was an experiment that worked out for them (at least in the case of the PS3) in preventing piracy.

[Ryaan1234]

I was banned on one of my consoles. I'd modded it a year or so ago and put a WD 160GB 2.5 SATA drive in there, flashed to look like a 120GB Microsoft official drive. I found out later that I didn't need to modify the firmware on the DVDROM to do it, but I assumed I did anyway.

This particular system never booted a burned game. It ran nothing but originals. It was also banned on The End Day.

This bothers me.

I love the idea of a game system that you can upgrade. When you buy a computer you can upgrade the RAM to a larger amount, you can put in a better graphics card, and you can do a lot of other stuff to improve a computer's performance. Why doesn't Microsoft just treat the Xbox 360 like a computer? What is the problem with upgrading your Xbox if you just want it to store more games and music and things like that? I've never pirated a game, but I think it would be a good idea to up the storage space of my Xbox from 20GB to 160GB. What's the problem with that?

I understand the problem with Microsoft being angry, or quite possibly litigious about someone using burned or pirated games, but it annoys me that Microsoft will ban an Xbox if you do something it improve it. You may even want extra space to download more games from them. Not everyone mods their game system to do illegal things.

(OMG I added new pins in my NES. I hope Nintendo doesn't ban my system!)

[Bojay1997]

This bothers me.

I love the idea of a game system that you can upgrade. When you buy a computer you can upgrade the RAM to a larger amount, you can put in a better graphics card, and you can do a lot of other stuff to improve a computer's performance. Why doesn't Microsoft just treat the Xbox 360 like a computer? What is the problem with upgrading your Xbox if you just want it to store more games and music and things like that? I've never pirated a game, but I think it would be a good idea to up the storage space of my Xbox from 20GB to 160GB. What's the problem with that?

I understand the problem with Microsoft being angry, or quite possibly litigious about someone using burned or pirated games, but it annoys me that Microsoft will ban an Xbox if you do something it improve it. You may even want extra space to download more games from them. Not everyone mods their game system to do illegal things.

(OMG I added new pins in my NES. I hope Nintendo doesn't ban my system!)

Because it's not an open system. If you want the flexibility of a PC, the solution is to just go and buy a PC. Standardizing every unit out there is one of the few strong means of detecting and preventing piracy. Yes, there is a profit motive and it sucks that the 360 hard drives cost far more than comparable PC units, but there are other console and gaming options out there for people who don't like the restrictions.

Other consumer product manufacturers void your warranty if you make modifications to their products. Heck, if you were to change the gas tank on your car in the way someone posted above, the manufacturer would refuse any further warranty repairs on the fuel system and likely any fuel system related component including the engine and emissions system. Is that fair? Part of the purchase price of a car includes the warranty, so should consumers be able to file a class action about that?

The 360s which were banned still function as gaming systems, so I'm still not understanding why everyone is so up in arms. It's unfortunate that game saves and downloads were lost, but they were being stored in an improperly modified device which were being used on a network that made it clear up front that to do so was against the terms of service. It's the risk the modifier took, plain and simple.

[s1lence]

While NO company wants consumers importing at lower prices due to differences in currency values of other countries - Perhaps Sony saw the error of their ways in past generations when they realized that people taking steps to mod for imports in almost every case opens the door to play pirated games, as the PSP and PS3 are both region free devices for current gen software. (Though not for movies.)

Just speculation, but maybe it was an experiment that worked out for them (at least in the case of the PS3) in preventing piracy.

Modding a 360 doesn't make it so you can play imports, only burned region free or region specific titles to the region the 360 is from.

[portnoyd]

The concern here is they kinda squashed a bug with a dump truck. If they could have left game saves and downloads alone, they should have. Of course, they didn't have to, it's their ball, they can take it and go home if they please.

Just would have been nice. But the business world is not. Which is why Porksta's lawful pride is foolish. When they make the rules as they see fit without your say, then why should you always play by their rules especially if you find them unreasonable? Reasonable is paying for game you're going to spend hours playing. Unreasonable is paying 3x the price for something that doesn't cost 3x the price.

[Raedon]

he is lawful good and we're all neutral good.

I'm Chaotic Neutral ... for the record.

[TonyTheTiger]

Other consumer product manufacturers void your warranty if you make modifications to their products. Heck, if you were to change the gas tank on your car in the way someone posted above, the manufacturer would refuse any further warranty repairs on the fuel system and likely any fuel system related component including the engine and emissions system. Is that fair? Part of the purchase price of a car includes the warranty, so should consumers be able to file a class action about that?

Yes, that is perfectly fair. And, no, that wouldn't justify a lawsuit. But that doesn't give the manufacturer the right to pop your tires in the process of voiding the warranty.

[98PaceCar]

Yes, that is perfectly fair. And, no, that wouldn't justify a lawsuit. But that doesn't give the manufacturer the right to pop your tires in the process of voiding the warranty.

If it's written into the TOS that in the event of an unauthorized change to the gas tank they can pop your tires, then yes, they can pop the tires if you change the gas tank. Doesn't make it right or even logical, but in a closed system like XBL, the TOS clearly(?) defines the rules and the penalties for breaking said rules. Every user on XBL agreed to those rules whether they read them to the end or not.

As it stands right now, the only question in my mind is what is in the TOS and did MS overstep their bounds in destroying the user data as part of the banning. If they did, this may have some teeth but my guess is the lawyers at MS were very much on top of the potential consequences from this banning and have already planned for the backlash.

[TonyTheTiger]

If it's written into the TOS that in the event of an unauthorized change to the gas tank they can pop your tires, then yes, they can pop the tires if you change the gas tank.

No they can't. There are limits to what can be written into a contract. Not saying that this in particular qualifies as such but, for instance, a court might say that the terms of a contract are unconscionable. The problem is that, in the case of TOS, EULAs, etc. regarding contemporary electronics and computer data, since they've not seen extensive testing in the courts we don't know what those limits are.

[skaar]

No they can't. There are limits to what can be written into a contract. Not saying that this in particular qualifies as such but, for instance, a court might say that the terms of a contract are unconscionable. The problem is that, in the case of TOS, EULAs, etc. regarding contemporary electronics and computer data, since they've not seen extensive testing in the courts we don't know what those limits are.

Hence, we come full circle to the point of the thread... the lawsuit ;)

[98PaceCar]

No they can't. There are limits to what can be written into a contract. Not saying that this in particular qualifies as such but, for instance, a court might say that the terms of a contract are unconscionable. The problem is that, in the case of TOS, EULAs, etc. regarding contemporary electronics and computer data, since they've not seen extensive testing in the courts we don't know what those limits are.

Sure they can. In the case of the user's data being corrupted, it could simply be eliminating data that cannot have it's digital signature validated properly. XBL and the 360 are closed systems, so any data that is there without a valid signature was more than likely put there by means excluded by the TOS and I'm sure there is a provision for removing it. It is possible that a court may actually rule that this was a step too far, but again, you are not giving the MS lawyers much credit. They know what's going on because they are the best that money can buy. MS wouldn't have made this move without knowing exactly where it could and likely will go.

Regardless, people need to understand that their actions have consequences. The OP is being a big man about it and taking the fact that after breaking the rules, he got his hand slapped and his toy taken away, in stride. I applaud him for that. To the rest of the folks that feel so entitled to their illegally modified systems, sometimes you have to pay to play and litigation after the fact only makes you look foolish. Sadly though, this is where America is rapidly heading.

[Bojay1997]

No they can't. There are limits to what can be written into a contract. Not saying that this in particular qualifies as such but, for instance, a court might say that the terms of a contract are unconscionable. The problem is that, in the case of TOS, EULAs, etc. regarding contemporary electronics and computer data, since they've not seen extensive testing in the courts we don't know what those limits are.

There are limits, but I'm not seeing anything in the stories about the purported lawsuit which make that claim. It seems like they are taking some type of timing conspiracy approach to the lawsuit that Microsoft somehow did this on the eve of MW2 launching so they could force people to pay to rejoin Xbox Live. I don't do antitrust or much corporate work, so I don't even know what possible legal theory they are trying to establish with this claim. They foolishly have already conceded in part that the Microsoft TOS prevents console mods and that Microsoft has the right to ban accounts. I agree with you that if they had argued unconscionability or that there was a provision in the TOS or the law that allowed for modification which did not result in piracy than the issue would have been more interesting and potentially precedential. As it stands, it just sounds like another law firm over its head trying to grab some headlines before the inevitable Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

[skaar]

Also, check this out. A ban waiting to happen. I'd bet good money these are "flashed" hard drives in generic enclosures.

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.30815

[Shadow Kisuragi]

Those look like 20GB HDD enclosures. Microsoft is coming out with larger HDDs, but they are branded like the new ones with the size printed in the chrome.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

If you don't break the rules you have nothing to fear. The only ones who fear/condemn punishment are the ones violating the rules.

wow, i sure wish i could visit that black and white world of absolutes that you live in, you'd probably shoot a child in the face, point blank range just for stealing gum.


the law and justice are 2 different things, close minded bigots tend to be color blind to moral shades of gray, so i wouldnt expect you to understand.