Support NeoGAF

[tetsuoxb]

no, you replace the xbox bios for the game to work, you don't actually do anything to defeat the copyright protection on the game itself to get the game to run

you don't do anything to their digital signiture, the modded bios does it all, you don't actually 'hack' anything in the game itself to get it to run

the actual skin replacements modifies the game in the sense that they modify the texture data, which has nothing to do with copyright protection

if simply modifying game data was illegal, then all those gamesharks, action replays and codebreakers would be illegal, as well as sites that post codes that modify game data since they have the details public

The modded BIOS is a circumvention device according to the DMCA. To use the skins you must use a circumvention device. Game over. Furthermore, by modding the texture data, you are modifying the MD5 sum that is part of the checksum routine of the digital signature. Once again, Game over.

---------------------------------------------------
To junkster-

Im not going to get into a battle of who gets it with you, because on a fundamental level, you are simply mistaken.

You are engaged in moral relativism, which I am pretty sure you don't understand since I accused you of it once and you continued on the same course.

What is "harmless". You cannot legally define "harmless". Nor can you legally define "wretched". You are engaged in a game of tit-for-tat line drawing based on your relative moral beliefs about the law. You also misunderstand the law as being about damages and compensation, when in truth the law is about rules and equity. Maybe you should take some time to think about the distinction there, and you will have an easier time understanding why Tecmo is 100% right.
----------------------------------------------------

Finally, I am pretty sure there is a pending lawsuit against DOA doujin creators in Japan, but I am not entirely sure.

 

[The Faceless Master]

The modded BIOS is a circumvention device according to the DMCA. To use the skins you must use a circumvention device. Game over. Furthermore, by modding the texture data, you are modifying the MD5 sum that is part of the checksum routine of the digital signature. Once again, Game over.

the modified bios is a circumvention device, but it's microsoft's copy protection device data that is being modified (the bios), not tecmo's (the digital sig)

the checksum is calculated for data in the xbe's, not the other files, and the textures aren't in the xbe, they're in other files, so modifying them doesn't do anything to affect the circumvention of a copy protection device

continue?
10
9
8
7

 

[tetsuoxb]

the modified bios is a circumvention device, but it's microsoft's copy protection device data that is being modified (the bios), not tecmo's (the digital sig)

Who's copy protection it is does not make a difference. CSS is owned by the DVD Group; however DeCSS was found illegal when rights owners sued because it was circumventing the copy protection on their DVDs. By your logic, DVD Group should have sued, not the MPAA.

Furthermore, since a circumvention device is NECESSARY to play those skins, it is, under the DMCA, a circumvention device against copy protection on Tecmo's software.

Meaning - DOA + No mod = no skins. DOA + Circumvention = Skins + DMCA Liability.

Once again. Game over.

 

[anotheriori]

btw how is it not competition? what if Tecmo wanted to sell a costume download? also the nude skins does hurt the IP, since Tecmo is going for a risque but not tasteless sex appeal and because of the few nude skins you get idots saying "oh i heard my friend gots doax where you can see the titties dude!".

 

[Deleted member 4784]

All of this reference to the DMCA; you're really after my own heart! May I ask if any of you boys have ever taken the time to actually read any of it, though? :lol I'd suggest that you take a look at US Code Title 17 §1201(c)(1) and §1201(c)(4) before you jump to such wild conclusions.

US Code Title 17 §1201(c):

Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—

(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
* * *
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Yes I have....

Now how about you quit trying to be cute and start trying to make a logical legal argument as to how distrubuting derivative works of a copyright you don't own falls into fair use or free speech.

Can we change the title of this thread from The People vs. Tecmo to Delusional Fanboys vs. Tecmo?

 

[Tellaerin]

Why are you so vehement about this, tetsuoxb? Do you like living in a world where we never actually own the software and hardware we purchase, and can only use them in whatever fashion the manufacturer sees fit to allow us to? Your sympathies here strike me as more than a little bizarre.

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that auto manufacturers don't dictate to the end-user how their cars can be modified, which I think is perfectly just and reasonable. IMO, the same should hold true with respect to computers, videogames, and associated software. When I buy something, I want ownership, with all that implies. Not some 'non-transferrable license' allowing me to use Company X's product in the ways (and only those ways) that they dictate. IMO, the law's long overdue for some serious revision, at least here in America.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

LOL!!! Tetsuoxb, I'll stop being cute when you stop accepting my advances. :lol

How am I not formulating a logical legal argument? I've just provided you with a single statute that has managed to denounce the majority (if not entirety) of your speculative arguments posed throughout the course of this thread in relation to the DMCA. Although, I will admit that this is all speculation on BOTH of our parts until Tecmo's complaint against ninjahacker.net is made available to us.

May I ask what is so hard about defining harmless? Especially when "harmless" use is already defined by law as a little thing we call "fair use"?

how [is it that the act of] distrubuting derivative works of a copyright you don't own falls into fair use or free speech.

Why would I be required to explain this when it is not the circumstance which has been presented to us? The only thing being distributed here are sprite alterations as well as the means of implementing them into an already purchased and owned copy of a videogame. The act of circumventing the encryption and making the sprite alterations is an exercise of free use as it falls under the category of an act of aftermarket retrofit. The publishing of the means of circumvention as well as the sprite modifications themselves could be seen as an exhibition of free speech as (1) the modifications themselves are not financially damaging to Tecmo being that they are taking place on an already purchased copy of their game and (2) can only be implemented by other individuals upon their own personal copies within their own homes.

BTW, please don't call me a fanboy, ma'am.

Tellaerin: The law doesn't need revision. Take a look at the statute (which is FROM the "DMCA") and come to your own conclusion about Tetsuoxb's claims.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Why are you so vehement about this, tetsuoxb? Do you like living in a world where we never actually own the software and hardware we purchase, and can only use them in whatever fashion the manufacturer sees fit to allow us to? Your sympathies here strike me as more than a little bizarre.

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that auto manufacturers don't dictate to the end-user how their cars can be modified, which I think is perfectly just and reasonable. IMO, the same should hold true with respect to computers, videogames, and associated software. When I buy something, I want ownership, with all that implies. Not some 'non-transferrable license' allowing me to use Company X's product in the ways (and only those ways) that they dictate. IMO, the law's long overdue for some serious revision, at least here in America.

No. I am vehement for 2 reasons.
1) I do my best to respect the rule of law. Even laws I don't like. Especially the DMCA.
2) I absolutely hate the idea most people have of "if I can do it, it isn't bad" that happens when something goes largescale and nothing is done.

You are missing the point. The issue is not whether you can make skins for DOA. The issue is distributing that work. That is what they did that was wrong. It brought the hammer down on the entire string of illegal acts they went through to release their game.

My sympathies are not bizarre... yours are. You claim to passionately love games, but then have no respect for the creators or their art. If I go to an expensive restuarant, I do not mix all the food on my plate because I can. I eat each dish by itself to see what the creator of the work did, and experience it how they wanted me to. I think it is disrespectful to creators of games to bastardize their work and then release it to the public. If you want to screw with someone's game, go ahead... but it is illegal to release that work. Plain and simple. Ninjahacker's wanted to be know as the people making skins for DoA, wanted people to use their skins and praise them, and went about it in an entirely illegal way. If a creator of a game wants me to make my own content, he will provide me with the tools to do so. Along with the knowledge that editing copyrighted characters is illegal (as of today).

The last issue is whether I like a world where we don't own our software and hardware. The answer is No. I don't. However, that does not preclude me from seeing what is legal and illegal and standing up for the law. I contribute to the EFF because I passionately support "copyleft" and the work of people like Larry Lessig at Stanford. Yet, the law is still the law, and until our efforts change it, we must respect it as such.

 

[tetsuoxb]

LOL!!! Tetsuoxb, I'll stop being cute when you stop accepting my advances. :lol

How am I not formulating a logical legal argument? I've just provided you with a single statute that has managed to denounce the majority (if not entirety) of your speculative arguments posed throughout the course of this thread in relation to the DMCA. Although, I will admit that this is all speculation on BOTH of our parts until Tecmo's complaint against ninjahacker.net is made available to us.

May I ask what is so hard about defining harmless? Especially when "harmless" use is already defined by law as a little thing we call "fair use"?

No you have not provided a legal argument. You have provided statutes. Statutes are the BASIS of a legal argument, not the argument themselves. You can ARGUE something is FREE SPEECH OR FAIR USE. You cannot say "It says I can faily use this" and take that to mean you can do anything you want.

Define "Fair Use". You can't, as it is defined by a judge on a case by case basis. Do me a favor. Go stand in front of Disney World in a naked Mickey suit you made, then go to the judge and claim fair use and freedom of speech. Just go do that.

Why would I be required to explain this when it is not the circumstance which has been presented to us? The only thing being distributed here are sprite alterations as well as the means of implementing them into an already purchased and owned copy of a videogame. The act of circumventing the encryption and making the sprite alterations is an exercise of free use as it falls under the category of an act of aftermarket retrofit. The publishing of the means of circumvention as well as the sprite modifications themselves could be seen as an exhibition of free speech as (1) the modifications themselves are not financially damaging to Tecmo being that they are taking place on an already purchased copy of their game and (2) can only be implemented by other individuals upon their own personal copies within their own homes.

Because you don't own the videogame. You own a liscense to use the video game. Nor do you own the characters in that game because you own the game. Nor do you have the right to modify the characters in that game because you own the game. Nor do you have the right to distribute derivative works because you own that game.

An aftermarket retrofit (in the car sense is what I am guessing you are refering to) is not equivalent to derivative works. How about you take your Star Wars DVD, shoot your own scenes, post it online with your scenes and the original scenes, and see if you don't get sued by lucasfilm. That is an "aftermarket retrofit" according to you.

You do not have to prove to me that Tecmo has not been damaged because
1) It is bloody hard to prove a negative.
2) The burden of proof lies with Tecmo.

However, I can tell you that Tecmo's argument will be that the existence of nude skins on a console game is detrimental to future sales. It is an easy argument to make and will probably win. If someone with religious leanings sees the game, they could unknowningly think that is a retail/unmodified copy and not by the game/embark on crusade against it. Hugely damaging to Tecmo.

BTW, please don't call me a fanboy, ma'am.

Tellaerin: The law doesn't need revision. Take a look at the statute (which is FROM the "DMCA") and come to your own conclusion about Tetsuoxb's claims.

I didn't call you a fanboy. I said the thread title should change. However, you haven't produced an argument that would convince a 3 year old, let alone a circuit court judge.

Considering that the best argument that any of you can muster is "It is harmless" or "It is free speech/fair use" (without justify why) I am pretty much done with this thread. My posts are becoming redundant because no one wants to accept the currently used legal interpretations of the DMCA and relevant copyright law.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

You are missing the point. The issue is not whether you can make skins for DOA. The issue is distributing that work. That is what they did that was wrong.

Which brings us back to §1201(c)(4):

Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

The act of circumvention itself is fair use in this specific circumstance being that it is taking place on an already purchased product. The same applies in consideration to the publication of both the modification and alterations, being that they are (1) not financially damaging to Tecmo and (2) are individually applied by an individual to their own purchased copy of the game. "Harmless" has everything to do with this.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Which brings us back to §1201(c)(4):

If you think quoting one passage of the DMCA is going to save your argument, here comes the actually relevant parts of copyright law. Please do learn to properly research.

this is taken from chillingeffect - a copyleft website. http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative

What's a "derivative work"?

Congress revised the federal copyright statute in 1976 to provide copyright owners with statutory protection for derivative works. A derivative work can take the form of "any . . . work [that] may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'" (emphasis added) 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1994).

Art which uses found objects, cultural references, preexisting stories may be protected under the fair use doctrine.

To decide whether a use is "fair use" or not, courts consider:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and,
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 107(1-4)

This is take from Lawrence Livermore National Labs: http://www.lbl.gov/Workplace/patent/ch9.html

Computer Software and Copyright

Computer Software and Copyright
9. Translations, Adaptations and Revisions Are Derivative Works
A derivative work is defined as a work based upon one or more preexisting works. In computer science this includes a translation of a computer program into another language or an adaptation of an original program onto a new platform. The derivative work is separately copyrightable. However, this protection applies only to the new material added and the compilation of the new and old elements.

A revision of a computer program is also a derivative work. It is based upon the earlier version. If the program is registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, discussed in §11, then a new revision must be registered as a new copyright.

The original work remains protected by its original copyright and belongs to the original author. Since the original author retains the right to produce derivative works based on the original program, the second programmer must obtain permission from the original author to use the program in a new derivative work. To repeat, since the right to prepare derivative works is part of the bundle of rights retained by the author of an original work, a computer programmer who is not the original author must obtain permission from the original author in order to create a derivative work based on the original work. Don't panic yet; read on.

Spare me the absolutely retarded argument that the sprites aren't code. Art assests are copyrighted as well, and as part of a program, do indeed count under the above laws.



EDIT: For those truly interested in the law itself... please refer to this page for the relevant title on copyright. http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title17/title17.html

 

[Deleted member 4784]

No you have not provided a legal argument. You have provided statutes. Statutes are the BASIS of a legal argument, not the argument themselves. You can ARGUE something is FREE SPEECH OR FAIR USE. You cannot say "It says I can faily use this" and take that to mean you can do anything you want.

I've provided statutes. May I ask what you have provided by comparison?

As far as the statutes I submitted are concerned, they have everything to do with use, as they limit the extent to which the DMCA is to be applied or hold relevance; primarily in relation to issues of FAIR USE. Considering that you recanted your former statement earlier by admitting that the act of circumvention and modification were indeed fair use, I must ask how you can claim that the act of publishing the results online are not free speech, considering that what is being published is the means of committing an act which is not harmful, but within the confines of fair use.

Define "Fair Use". You can't, as it is defined by a judge on a case by case basis. Do me a favor. Go stand in front of Disney World in a naked Mickey suit you made, then go to the judge and claim fair use and freedom of speech. Just go do that.

Your analogy is entirely fallacious and inapplicable to this circumstance. A more relevant analogy would be if you were to take a picture of yourself in that naked Mickey Mouse suit and post it online. Which, if such a bizarre act were to take place, would not be illegal.

If we were to go by your reasoning, then the act of modifying a car would not be illegal, but the act of publishing the means of doing so online would. What would be illegal is publishing the entirety of Tecmo's game code online. However, all that was provided was a means of personally circumventing an already purchased copy of a game to make alterations. Circumvention is only illegal by the DMCA under certain circumstances and until you provide me with a statute or definition that proves otherwise, this isn't one of them.

 

[Kuroyume]

I declare Waychel the winner by T.K.O.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Since Im crapping on waychel for being obtuse... ive dug into some case law for people to enjoy, love, and realize ninjahackers are screwed.

This short synopsis is taken from chilling effects derivative works FAQ: http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi

Question: Can I take a character from a movie, like Chewbacca from Star Wars, and use it in a play with a very different plot and otherwise different characters?

Answer: Probably not. The people who hold copyright in Star Wars own the characters as well as the plot, the filmed images, etc. Placing a distinctive fictional character in a different context or medium is still copying that character, and therefore infringement. However, if you use the character for the purposes of parody or criticism you might be making a legitimate fair use of the character. Note that in one case involving Walt Disney, Inc. and a comic book publisher, the comic book publisher argued that his use of the images of Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse and Donald Duck was satirical, and therefore fair use. The Ninth Circuit rejected the fair use argument, reasoning that the comic book took more of the images than was necessary to suggest the characters in the minds of the readers and therefore exceed the bounds of fair use. See Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F. 2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).

Here is some more on WDP vs Air Pirates: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Cochran/Cases & Readings/Copyright-UNT/airpirates.htm



Waychel... do I have to keep going?

 

[tetsuoxb]

Considering that you recanted your former statement earlier by admitting that the act of circumvention and modification were indeed fair use, I must ask how you can claim that the act of publishing the results online are not free speech, considering that what is being published is the means of committing an act which is not harmful, but within the confines of fair use.

No. I meant that if you circumvent and don't run around telling everyone and posting it on the internet, Tecmo wont know and wont sue you. Circumvention is wrong under the DMCA if you live the US. That being said, how are you going to get caught otherwise?

Your analogy is entirely fallacious and inapplicable to this circumstance. A more relevant analogy would be if you were to take a picture of yourself in that naked Mickey Mouse suit and post it online. Which, if such a bizarre act were to take place, would not be illegal.

If we were to go by your reasoning, then the act of modifying a car would not be illegal, but the act of publishing the means of doing so online would. What would be illegal is publishing the entirety of Tecmo's game code online. However, all that was provided was a means of personally circumventing an already purchased copy of a game to make alterations. Circumvention is only illegal by the DMCA under certain circumstances and until you provide me with a statute or definition that proves otherwise, this isn't one of them.

Hopefully the relevant passages of copyright law have convinced you that you are wrong. Otherwise, you are (insert demeaning statement about way's intelligence here).

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Before you tell me to "properly research" I suggest that you provide me with actual statutes and not opinion from a website that doesn't even hold ABA approval. Similarly, I suggest that if you provide me with a statute that it actually relate to the individual circumstance at hand. What you have provided me with relates to the production of a new but derivative work. However, this is a circumstance of reverse-engineering an existing work to modify an already purchased product. There is a profound difference. I suggest that if you attempt to interpret law, you pay a little more attention to detail in the future. Nice try, though.

Also of note:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes.

The use is not commercial in this circumstance but non-profit and in the pursuit of the further personal enjoyment of an already purchased product.

The nature of the copyrighted work.

The nature of this modification is that it is upon an already purchased product in a personal manner.

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The market value of the game is not in question as a result of these modifications being that the modifications do not pose competition to the original copyright work, but simply add upon it. Also, the modifications must be personally made by the person in ownership of the copyrighted product.

 

[DDayton]

I hate to say it, but I think that the spirit of the copyright law is on the side of the modders and hackers, generally. Once they bought a copy of the game, they should be free to do whatever they wish with their own copy... burn it, tear it to pieces, or cut it up into segments and glue it into a new book.

Now, distributing tools which make it easy to hack into the code DOES seem to fall outside of "fair use", possibly.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Here is another relevant case that should pretty much shut down way.

Again I refer to the Chillingeffect's FAQ (Maintained by Larry Lessig's *creator of the creative commons liscense* Stanford Center for Internet and Society - which means if it has a slant it is copyleft): http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi

Question: Can I make a sculpture based on a photograph without permission?

Answer: No. The sculpture would be a derivative work. In one famous case, artists Jeff Koons made a sculpture based on a photograph of a group of puppies and argued that the sculpture was a “fair use.” See Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir 1992). The court found that the sculpture was not a fair use, in part because the sculpture damaged the photographer’s potential market for derivative works. The photographer might want to grant a license to another sculptor to make a new work based on the photograph. If so, the existence of Koons’ sculpture could reduce the potential market available to that licensee and thereby reduce the value of the photographer’s copyrights.

You will have to go to the 2nd Circuit's archives to read the actual ruling.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

No. I meant that if you circumvent and don't run around telling everyone and posting it on the internet, Tecmo wont know and wont sue you. Circumvention is wrong under the DMCA if you live the US. That being said, how are you going to get caught otherwise?

Circumvention alone is only illegal under the DMCA under certain circumstances as dictated by §1201. Similarly, US Code Title 17 §1201(c)(1) and §1201(c)(4) explicitly state exceptions which the DMCA holds no power or influence over. Fair use and the freedom of speech thereof are two of those exceptions.

Hopefully the relevant passages of copyright law have convinced you that you are wrong. Otherwise, you are (insert demeaning statement about way's intelligence here).

Actually, the relevant passages ring clear as a bell to me because I recognize that law is an issue of individual circumstance and see it in relation to this case.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

tetsuoxb, be not I to judge your intelligence, but your reasoning in finding cases directly analogous to this one seems to be lacking. I hate to repeat myself for verbatim, but in this case I find it necessary being that the reasoning necessary here continues to elude you:

What you have provided me with relates to the production of a new but derivative work. However, this is a circumstance of reverse-engineering an existing work to modify an already purchased product. There is a profound difference.

 

[tetsuoxb]

Before you tell me to "properly research" I suggest that you provide me with actual statutes and not opinion from a website that doesn't even hold ABA approval. Similarly, I suggest that if you provide me with a statute that it actually relate to the individual circumstance at hand. What you have provided me with relates to the production of a new but derivative work. However, this is a circumstance of reverse-engineering an existing work to modify an already purchased product. There is a profound difference. I suggest that if you attempt to interpret law, you pay a little more attention to detail in the future. Nice try, though.

The profound difference is that you have no idea that you defined another type of derivative work. The statues are also listed. I bolded the relevant one in the first passage. Section 11 of title 17 is the relevant on in the second passage. Links to the case law were provided in the rest.

I still don't see how you can not be clear on the issue that they are wrong. Their "patched" DOA is a derivative work. Modchips have been declared illegal circumvention devices in US court in a de facto sense (as the isonews.com operator got 5 months for selling illegal circumvention devices) and it just seems silly that you dont want to face reality.

These guys will lose if this ever gets to court. If they don't, I will mirror their files on my own website.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

A "patched" DOA is the modification of an existing work; in this case, an already purchased product. The circumstances/cases which you have provided me with however relate to issues more directly comparable to acts of plagiarism. For your analogies to have basis, this would need to be a case involving the creation of an entirely new game using DoA sprites or characters.

 

[tetsuoxb]

What you have provided me with relates to the production of a new but derivative work. However, this is a circumstance of reverse-engineering an existing work to modify an already purchased product. There is a profound difference.

I cannot provide you an analogous case because 1) All the TC cases for PC Games ended with smart people accepting the C&D Letters. 2) No case such as this has gone to court. That is why this is interesting, and why previous case law applies. It is what a circuit judge would use should this all come to trial.

But to extend your logic:

So I can modify and release my Star Wars DVD? Are you willing to pay all my legal bills and insure my liability if I digitally remove Slave Leia's bra and show her tits, then release it for free on the net?

I would be using a circumvention device (DeCSS) to reverse-engineer the file, then modifying it. What if I only released a script file that changed her breasts using a file I made, and not a file of the whole movie? You think that would be legal?

These cats are gonna lose. Simple as that. I am sure you are a smart guy, but you are simply neglegent to not accept that you are most likely wrong.

 

[tetsuoxb]

A "patched" DOA is the modification of an existing work; in this case, an already purchased product. The circumstances/cases which you have provided me with however relate to issues more directly comparable to acts of plagiarism. For your analogies to have basis, this would need to be a case involving the creation of an entirely new game using DoA sprites or characters.

I am sure that Tecmo will argue that "PATCHED DOA" is an entirely new game, and thus a derivative work. They will say, and I agree, that since there is no way for the user to modify the content within the written framework of the game, that the lengths they went to add content constitute a new game.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

I cannot provide you an analogous case because 1) All the TC cases for PC Games ended with smart people accepting the C&D Letters. 2) No case such as this has gone to court. That is why this is interesting, and why previous case law applies. It is what a circuit judge would use should this all come to trial.

Forfeiture does not set precedent.

I am sure that Tecmo will argue that "PATCHED DOA" is an entirely new game, and thus a derivative work. They will say, and I agree, that since there is no way for the user to modify the content within the written framework of the game, that the lengths they went to add content constitute a new game.

They can claim whatever they like just as much as you do, but it doesn't mean that it will supersede actual legal definition. This is not an "entirely new game" as it involves the modification of an existing, purchased copy of a game. Furthermore, the examples you have provided me with relate not to a process of modifications, but of new and plagiarized creations. Your own research does not substantiate either your flawed reasoning or your incorrect grasp of terminology or definition.

So I can modify and release my Star Wars DVD? Are you willing to pay all my legal bills and insure my liability if I digitally remove Slave Leia's bra and show her tits, then release it for free on the net?

If you are going to attempt to propose another fallacious analogical argument, then at least present one that doesn't already take place and go ignored by copyright holders.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

What if I buy a copy of the Mona Lisa, white out her chest, draw boobies, then tell everyone how to do the same?

... They should just fucking go with the parody stuff.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

What if I buy a copy of the Mona Lisa, white out her chest, draw boobies, then tell everyone how to do the same?

... They should just fucking go with the parody stuff.

If that were illegal, then the majority of people on this forum would be committing a crime by using their avatars. :lol

 

[Tellaerin]

My sympathies are not bizarre... yours are. You claim to passionately love games, but then have no respect for the creators or their art. If I go to an expensive restuarant, I do not mix all the food on my plate because I can. I eat each dish by itself to see what the creator of the work did, and experience it how they wanted me to. I think it is disrespectful to creators of games to bastardize their work and then release it to the public. If you want to screw with someone's game, go ahead... but it is illegal to release that work. Plain and simple. Ninjahacker's wanted to be know as the people making skins for DoA, wanted people to use their skins and praise them, and went about it in an entirely illegal way. If a creator of a game wants me to make my own content, he will provide me with the tools to do so. Along with the knowledge that editing copyrighted characters is illegal (as of today).

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be saying you're opposed to the idea of skinning/mapping/modding for an existing game, regardless of whether or not the creators grant the end-user permission to do so. To you, it seems the very act of modifying those assets somehow shows a lack of 'respect for the creators or their art', as if all modding is intrinsically an act of defacement--something that 'bastardizes' the creators' work.

As someone who enjoys mapping and skinning for games like UT2k4, that's a sentiment I strongly disagree with. From what I gather, the Ninjahacker crew created custom skins and model tweaks to change the appearance of characters in a game they bought, and they wanted to distribute their work for other owners of the game to enjoy. In those things, they're no different than any other modders out there. Argue the legality of their actions as you will, but to claim that I (and other modders) have 'no respect for the creators' of the games we mod, whatever they may be, 'or their art', is something I find pretty offensive.

The last issue is whether I like a world where we don't own our software and hardware. The answer is No. I don't. However, that does not preclude me from seeing what is legal and illegal and standing up for the law. I contribute to the EFF because I passionately support "copyleft" and the work of people like Larry Lessig at Stanford. Yet, the law is still the law, and until our efforts change it, we must respect it as such.

There is a difference between obeying a given law and advocating it. While it may be unintentional, in this thread you've managed to come off as a proponent of the types of laws you claim to oppose. Tecmo may have the right to take action against the Ninjahacker guys under the current laws, but that hardly calls for you to defend them from criticism, particularly if you feel that the laws which permit them to do so in the first place are in need of changing.

 

[Fantasmo]

No. I am vehement for 2 reasons.
1) I do my best to respect the rule of law. Even laws I don't like. Especially the DMCA.
2) I absolutely hate the idea most people have of "if I can do it, it isn't bad" that happens when something goes largescale and nothing is done.

On your first point... I don't even know how to approach this let alone analyze it. Our Law system was created with elasticity and change in mind because times change. Not only that, but in my state, our state leaders were recently censured (sp?) for corruption. My point is, law can be wrong and we should never blindly follow law if it is wrong. The more cases like this that come out, the more of a possibility the DMCA will come into scrutiny and either be revoked, empowered, or replaced. This doesn't mean I advocate breaking the law. No, I believe in questioning everything, as everybody is human and corruption does exist from every level of society.

To nail my point, I'm going to just state a few facts. I think these should, prove that the law can be flawed.

1) In my state, it is illegal to slurp soup.
2) A few hundred years ago it was legal to own slaves in my country.

On your second point... okay I see where you're coming from on this, but your first point seems entirely fanatical and based on point 1. But realize this, no matter how much you modify the law to your liking to get people what you want them to do, it still ain't gonna happen. People are gonna do shit that you don't like no matter how much you force them into living the way you think they should. The laws will not stop them because they feel the law is wrong. Sometimes those people are scumbags, other times the law does, in fact, need changing.

If I go to an expensive restuarant, I do not mix all the food on my plate because I can. I eat each dish by itself to see what the creator of the work did, and experience it how they wanted me to. I think it is disrespectful to creators of games to bastardize their work and then release it to the public.

No, it is not disrespectful of them. Instead, it is ignorant of you to think that everyone who goes to an expensive restaurant is going there for the chef's work. There are plenty of reasons to go to an expensive restaurant. The only time I ever go for the chef's work is on my date, and even then it's more about me and her than it is about the chef.

You're adamant about trying to follow the law and so angry at people who break laws you think are important to follow that you've taken it to an extreme level. The other implication of the comment is that you seem to be also interested in telling people the way they should be living. I can tell that this is the driving force behind your actions. I'd like to know what laws people broke that bothered you enough to think that all law should be sacred. (I fully fully respect if you do not want to answer this). Back on topic, those modified Honda/Mercedes posts have more to do with gamers' standpoints than you realize. If I bought a vaccuum cleaner that didn't work from Sears or something, and I knew how to fix it, I'm not going to admire the original creator's work , I'm going to fix the damn thing! You want to take that right away from me just because I should marvel at the original work? When should we be allowed to say, the original work sucks and I'm going to fix it? (notice I didn't say steal it or sell it). And, most of us agree in the idea that software should fall under aftermarket retrofit, just as all other products do. How do you think 99% of the products out there even exist? Do you think somebody reinvented the wheel everytime? When you were a kid, were there rules on how you could use GI Joe action figures or TMNT toys? Why does creativity have to die. Who says we should only use things a certain way? Did Itagaki invent Ninjas or volleyball or boobs or anime? Hey, how many of those costumes is he blatantly RIPPING OFF from the malls he's shopped at and seen? So, he's constructing a game out of things he's seen in pop culture! Surely the original creators of such costumes and locales should be credited for their work? But Itagaki probably modified their work enough so it falls under creativity and his own copyright. So now he is allowed to make a tremendous amount of money for his company off of others ideas and products. So when do minor modifications become illegal?

Look I'm not trying to be a jerk. And please don't label me as a pirate or thief. Lines should always be drawn, and I agree on that.

However, in this case, the original product is necessary to create the mods and there was no blatant thievery/piracy. A couple new costumes for a few characters in a game does more good than bad for the product. I believe that there are no damages and Tecmo actually be grateful that people are having such fun with their product.

So they guys broke the DMCA and fair use laws. What we're saying is these laws should be completely eradicated or modified.

 

[Shadax]

How am I not formulating a logical legal argument? *snip*

Because you're misunderstanding fair use. Fair use is having a book report due on Spider-Man and using a clip from the movie in the book report presentation in class (by showing the DVD on a DVD player). THAT is fair use. You don't need Marvel's/Sony's permission to use that movie to express an idea/comment on the movie.

Altering and then distributing copyrighted game code in the form of new character skins which also requires a DMCA-violating (recall that DMCA is a part of US Federal Copyright Law) circumvention device to even use said skins, is NOT fair use.

Fair use has been wildly misconstrued by many consumer-interest groups (especially EFF). In fact, I attended the DMCA Exemption hearings at UCLA in May of 2004, held by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress as mandated by Congress during the passage of the DMCA into law in 1998. The hearings are a triannual observation of the law in its current practice and are required to determine if the law is too strict and is impeding fair use. Guess what? The entire Copyright Office panel (including the US Register of Copyright, Mary Beth Peters) continuously reminded EFF lawyers arguing over things such as DeCSS and time-shifting that their arguments were devolving into moral arguments, and NOT legal ones. You are bleating just like every other MP3 downloading college student who likes it and thinks that because it can be done, it must be legal. All of sudden, when people's free music and TV shows and movies and games are being threatened, EVERYONE'S a goddamn copyright expert.

 

[Fantasmo]

into moral arguments, and NOT legal ones.

This thread needs to be moved to off-topic.

Here's how this thread is playing out:

It's against the law
We agree, but its a stupid law
It's against the law.
We agree, but its a stupid law.
etc.

You are bleating just like every other MP3 downloading college student who likes the fact that because it can be done, it must be legal. All of sudden, when people's free music and TV shows and movies and games are being threatened, EVERYONE'S a goddamn copyright expert.

No, it's you and tetsuo keep twisting it into that. I don't believe MP3's, movies, or games should be downloaded. I believe they should be allowed to be modified for personal use (but not for sale, we have no business making money off somebody else's work). There's a tremendous distinction there.

Again, in this case, just as with all mods, you need the original works to even do anything with the modified works.

 

[Shadax]

However, all that was provided was a means of personally circumventing an already purchased copy of a game to make alterations. Circumvention is only illegal by the DMCA under certain circumstances and until you provide me with a statute or definition that proves otherwise, this isn't one of them.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 Prev | Next

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.




This next part deals with that UCLA DMCA Exemption hearings I talked about in a previous post:




(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.
(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.



Anyway, now to the important part:




(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
(b) Additional Violations.—
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
(2) As used in this subsection—
(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

The "ninja hackers" are publicly distributing both the knowledge and the means to circumvent Tecmo's copyrighted code to make these skins work. That's why they're being sued and that's why it's illegal.

 

[Acosta]

May I suggest a tea for everyone?

 

[Shadax]

Here's how this thread is playing out:
It's against the law
We agree, but its a stupid law
It's against the law.
We agree, but its a stupid law.
etc.

You say that, then you go right into:

Again, in this case, just as with all mods, you need the original works to even do anything with the modified works.

Implying that because you need the original game to play, it makes it morally OK to do what ninjahackers did. You were previously trying to argue the legality of the law, and when you were proven that you were wrong, and that the ninjahackers did violate the law, you revert to a moral argument to save face.

I'm not arguing whether or not you believe ninjahackers are wrong in doing what they do, obviously you think it's right. If that's all you're arguing, fine. PERIOD. END OF STORY. I'm not arguing that because that's your opinion, I can't prove your opinion right or wrong.

However, don't try to make a MORAL argument that ninjahackers are legally protected in what they're doing--I will argue the law with you and point out where you're wrong.

 

[The Faceless Master]

The "ninja hackers" are publicly distributing both the knowledge and the means to circumvent Tecmo's copyrighted code to make these skins work. That's why they're being sued and that's why it's illegal.

no, they're not, they don't tell you how to get a modchip or how to use it, they assume you already have one and already know how to use it
and with DOA3, you don't even have to circumvent the copy protection devices, you can use that 'Xbox HDD Driver' to transfer the files to the xbox hdd from your pc

 

[Fantasmo]

You say that, then you go right into:

Again, in this case, just as with all mods, you need the original works to even do anything with the modified works.

Implying that because you need the original game to play, it makes it morally OK to do what ninjahackers did. You were previously trying to argue the legality of the law, and when you were proven that you were wrong, and that the ninjahackers did violate the law, you revert to a moral argument to save face.

I'm not arguing whether or not you believe ninjahackers are wrong in doing what they do, obviously you think it's right. If that's all you're arguing, fine. PERIOD. END OF STORY. I'm not arguing that because that's your opinion, I can't prove your opinion right or wrong.

However, don't try to make a MORAL argument that ninjahackers are legally protected in what they're doing--I will argue the law with you and point out where you're wrong.

No, I'm not implying anything lawful about it. You're doing that. You're twisting my words. Your misinterpretation is causing us to spin wheels. I'm showing the distinction between stealing and piracy and modifications, and I've been doing that the whole time! I'm pinpointing my arguments to show that creative works can be modified without theft (or should not be labelled as such) for the good of the future while you keep dragging out the legal stuff.

I've been saying right from the get-go that lawyers and sueing is not the right answer especially in light of how mods help the industry. I'm saying it shouldn't even be about legal stuff and should not be going to court.

Most all other products on this planet fall under aftermarket retrofit, a legal term with moral implications. I think its a morally sound law. Why should modifying software/encrypted hardware be any different from modifying Hondas/Mercedes/vaccuum cleaners? Why should Hewlett Packard be allowed to encrypt their ink cartridges to prevent competition? Why should security companies sue those who find that their products suck? Especially when most of those people quietly contact the companies in hopes that they'll fix their products and false claims before they go public with it to protect customers from potential disasters? These are moral questions with legal issues. I'm not saving face, I'm trying to shed light on the hypocrisy of the law that you so lovingly enjoy referring back to.

Do a google search for "hellabunna aloha" and you'll see something that has a better chance of damaging the reputation or bottom line of the company. Or just do a fanart search. So unlicensed/licensed pornographic DOA art, (both are out there), is legal while a game art mod isn't? Why not sue the licensed/unlicensed fanart people? Obviously, software =/= anything else. Or more specifically, DMCA > everything else and Tecmo knows it and knows they can win. Hypocritical. You gonna try to tell me that reverse engineering the game and modifying a few models is going to ruin Tecmo trade secrets? This industry moves so fast that by the time somebody makes a working game off a few 3d techniques, it's entirely obsolete. And again, have you seen any fan made mods actually damage a company financially or its reputation?

These guys were modding a game that requires the original game. That's morally sound to me. They're using original code but because it requires the original game, it's not competing with the original game. That's morally sound to me. They're not putting Tecmo out of business and they're playing with their own creativity. That's morally sound to me. Some people might go out and check a few of Tecmo's games out because of the mods available for it. That's morally sound to me. And these guys tinkering seem to have great talent, maybe becoming future artists for future game companies. That's all completely and totally morally sound to me.

And this all sounds so hypocritical to me because Tecmo reinvented itself with DOA, arguably a VF2 clone with titties. I would argue the series started out as nothing more than a half-assed mod. And I'm not trying to shit on Tecmo over their products, as I love NG and FF and they've grown tremendously. However, I'm shitting on their hypocrisy and lack of respect for their fans over something that has neutral/positive moral standing and did nothing to damage the reputation or bottom line of their company.

Whatever.. you think its immoral or illegal to mod and I think its fine, undamaging and should be legal. Since you're speaking at me and not with me, I'm done here.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

The mistake that people are making here is that they take one look at the DMCA and say, "this means that anything and everything of a circumventive nature is illegal" when that is not entirely the case. The DMCA makes ONLY ONE area of what it defines the act of circumvention to be actually illegal. Furthermore, the DMCA specifically states that the intention of the amendments themselves is not to limit rights of either fair use OR freedom of speech thereof and that acts of circumvention which fall under these categories shall not be limited or infringed upon by the DMCA. The significance of this is that the DMCA is not only saying that as long as the use is harmless and personal that one may actually legally circumvent material, but that as long as it is equally harmless and in no way damaging to publish it, then that act as well falls under the category of freedom of speech. This was extremely well written legislation.

Similarly, the argument that this is the creation of a "derivative work" is entirely inaccurate and not directly analogous to this circumstance. Every case shown throughout the course of this topic exemplifying a "derivative work" relates to the creation of an entirely new work -- or copy of a work -- plagiarized/inspired by or using the material of a copyrighted work. That is not the same as modifying an existing work that has already been published and purchased. Although the alterations which may be used to alter the existing work as well as the means to do so are made public, the game itself is not. Therefore, this activity and publication only affects or impacts previously purchased material. No "competition" is being offered to the original work being that the subject at hand involves the personal modification of the original work after purchase. Once again, we come back to the definition of aftermarket retrofit.

The only debatable thing about this is whether ninjahacker.net had the right to publish the means of circumvention itself online, which ENTIRELY DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT of the circumventive tool and/or information itself. Keep in mind that the DMCA states that circumvention in rights of fair use is not only protected, but so is free speech in that regard. The nature of the circumvention itself that was published is what is actually in question. Such as, "did the circumvention method provide information about Tecmo's game code that could be used by their competitors?" or "is the circumvention tool broad in what it could be used for?" Unless we could actually look at (1) the circumvention tool/information and (2) most importantly, Tecmo's complaint (if any has actually been filed) then this debate is pretty moot considering that no case of this specific nature has ever gone to court.

Furthermore, just because people may comply to cease and desist orders in cases like these does not mean that the case of their use being illegal is not highly disputable. All that it means is that pursuing the defense of such a case would be uneconomical. I should remind you that it wasn't too long ago that companies like Mattel were sending cease and desist orders to people for using pictures of Barbie on their website. Obviously, we now know that such use is considered fair under this and a great number of other circumstances. However, it took an actual case for precedent to be set and intimidation to hold less weight.

As for the act of modification itself, I have yet to see an actual case that went to court involving modification that did not include the marketing/sale of the means of modification itself. The act of marketing a means of modification is what largely impacts a great deal of those particular cases – not the act of modification itself.

EDIT: BTW, before you criticize those of us defending modification for "not being legal experts", may I ask to see your JD by contrast? The fact of the matter is that the people condemning modification in this debate are no more qualified to interpret law than those defending it. Nobody here is giving legal advice to ninjahacker.net; only debating the legal issue itself. If you don't understand this concept, then I must wonder just what exactly you are doing posting on an internet FORUM in the first place. =PpP

 

[Deleted member 4784]

no, they're not, they don't tell you how to get a modchip or how to use it, they assume you already have one and already know how to use it
and with DOA3, you don't even have to circumvent the copy protection devices, you can use that 'Xbox HDD Driver' to transfer the files to the xbox hdd from your pc

So, what you're saying is that they didn't even publish a tool for circumventing DOA3 on their website in the first place? If that's true, then a lot of what has been debated about in this topic has just flown right out the window. :lol

This is why I really wish we could see a copy of the website itself and Tecmo's complaint (if any). I have a feeling this was likely just a C&D order only though.

 

[border]

The "ninja hackers" are publicly distributing both the knowledge and the means to circumvent Tecmo's copyrighted code to make these skins work.

What are you talking about?

The DOA skins themselves do not circumvent any kind of piracy protection -- THEY ARE TEXTURE FILES, not bios replacements.

That part of the DMCA doesn't have any relevance here. The fact that you need a mod to use them is not material -- you need a mod to listen to MP3s on the Xbox but that doesn't make them illegal. You need a mod to run Linux but that isn't illegal either. All the homebrew software is legal so long as it wasn't compiled on a pirated SDK.

This is why I really wish we could see a copy of the website itself

http://web.archive.org

 

[The Faceless Master]

So, what you're saying is that they didn't even publish a tool for circumventing DOA3 on their website in the first place? If that's true, then a lot of what has been debated about in this topic has just flown right out the window. :lol

This is why I really wish we could see a copy of the website itself and Tecmo's complaint (if any). I have a feeling this was likely just a C&D order only though.

yes, i'm saying they had nothing for actually being able to copy the game or break the cop protection, etc, it was all assumed that you already had a modded xbox and knew how to ftp into it and copy files etc...

this is what they had on their site:

DOA3 Skins (.cat/.xpr files)

DOAX Skins (.ppf/.bos patches)

DOAU Skins (.bos patches)
from what i recall, .bos patches are based on the ppf format, but they have added info (an md5 checksum i think) to see if the file you were patching was the right one

i'm not sure exactly what they had for ninja gaiden, i never really checked out the mods for it...

.ppf patches to allow clean framebuffer grabs for perfect screenshots

.ppf patches to disable the drawing of swimsuits and textures in DOAX

homemade tools for extracting data from and injecting data into .cat/.xpr/.afs files
one such tool (AFS Explorer) was actually created for Konami's football games to modify uniforms etc, but most were created mainly for use with DOA games

homemade tools for viewing models+textures on PC

links to stuff like a photoshop plugin that can be used to edit .dds textures

info on the various file formats, patches, etc

dunno, i may have missed some stuff, but i think that's a good percentage

 

[border]

Can somebody explain how it is that these patches only worked with storebought copies of Tecmo games? I don't see how they could really prevent people from using them with a downloaded version.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Can somebody explain how it is that these patches only worked with storebought copies of Tecmo games? I don't see how they could really prevent people from using them with a downloaded version.

well, they can't prevent people from using the patches with a downloaded version

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Regardless, the fact remains that no means of circumvention was being made publicly available. The only thing really of question here was whether the means of circumvention itself (either through the publishing of instruction or a circumventive tool) could be published. Even Tetsuo himself acknowledged that the modification itself was not in violation of the DMCA as it fell under the confines of fair use. I wonder what an attorney would think of all of this, because it sounds to me like Tecmo is falsely claiming that they have the authority to deny a customer the right of aftermarket retrofit, which would be a violation of fair as much as private use.

We should have listened to you sooner; it would have saved us a whole page of irrelevant debate. :lol