On Thursday 03 October 2002 11:31 am, Jamin W.Collins wrote: > On 03 Oct 2002 09:58:59 -0500 Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 07:13, Colin Watson wrote: > > > Ever heard of the term "circumvention", as applied to copy-prevention > > > techniques? See the URL you quoted, chapter III, article 6. > > > > So as long as he's not playing pirated games, he should be legal. > > Not quite. As I understand it, the XBox has hardware to restrict the > execution of code to that signed and authorized by MS. For the XBox to > run Linux, one would first have to circumvent this mechanism. Based on a > cursory look at the provided link and referenced section it would seem > that the application of a mod chip would be a violation. Again, IANAL.
surely, m(acro)$ would have to show that martin's manipulation of the xbox caused them real financial loss in order to prove a violation of patents or copyrights. even in order to prove that software copy-protection had been circumvented, one should have to provide evidence that copies had not only been made but also used in a fashion contrary to the conditions of the license, in order to justify a claim that that was the object of the manipulation. ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]