Is this a radio or a supercomputer?
In today’s edition of the University of Washington student newspaper “The Daily” there is an article describing how some Electrical Engineering grad students are adapting the Xbox 360’s Kinect system to assist in non-invasive, robotic surgeries as part of a larger research project. Kudos to them for their creativity, right? A look at some recent news in the gaming world might put a darker spin on their efforts.
This past December, a group of coders hacked into the Playstation 3 gaming console, essentially giving themselves the ability to run any operating system they like on the machine. A similar hacking code was then made public by another hacker, George Hotz, and Sony filed a DMCA lawsuit against him. (This is particularly interesting to note because the Playstation 3 was originally designed to allow for other operating systems to be run on it.) The Guardian gives an excellent summary of the events and their effect on the video gaming industry.
In light of the events surrounding the PS3, what problems might arise with the UW students’ use of the Kinect system for their own purposes? Is it considered fair use if it is for scientific and medical research? How would DMCA affect their vision of wide-spread implementation of the technology in remote regions?
These kinds of stories also raise questions about the nature of video game consoles. They have been behind some pretty awesome innovations: have they transcended their origins as information appliances and truly become generative platforms, or has Sony’s lawsuit had its own kind of ‘chilling effect’ on that sort of evolution?
I think the news surrounding the Kinect getting hacked has been pretty interesting. First, Microsoft responded harshly, condemning the hackers, but then in an interview, a Microsoft rep said that the company would not sue hackers for making and sharing their own Kinect drivers.
Personally, I think Microsoft should have provided the means to open it up from the beginning, and then run a contest for the best product developed using the Kinect. Of course, Microsoft would then own all the entries. It seems like a clever way to get free labor and promote the development of some really cool technology.
This PS3 modding story sounds similar to a recent court case involving modded (“hacked”) XBox 360 consoles. The defendant was accused of modding XBox 360 consoles for a fee, which would allow the system to play illegally copied retail games in addition to “homebrew” games created by users. The potential to copy retail games seems to be Sony’s biggest fear in regards to the PS3 hack.
Ultimately the court case for the XBox modder was dismissed because the prosecution made some mistakes while collecting and presenting their evidence, but it would have been interesting to see a final decision for this case. As a Wired article states, “It was the nation’s first jury trial to test the anti-circumvention provisions of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act as applied to game consoles. The law makes it a crime to offer a product or service that circumvents a technological measure designed to protect copyright material.”
In terms of the UW student’s adaptation of the Kinect technology being fair use under US copyright law:
1. possibly educational or at least altruistic use, definitely for research (would they sell mod versions? or license the use of adaptive software?)
2. The nature of the work – I am uncertain how to describe this as fictional or non-fictional.
3. Using a significant portion of the work, both hardware and software, just re-purposing for medical use rather than entertainment purposes.
4. I doubt the use in medical fields would supersede the Kinect’s original entertainment market. Though both Rare (owned by Microsoft) and PrimeSense, the company which helped develop the 3D technology, might be redeveloping the Kinect technology for other purposes.
In terms of the students’ research with the technology, I think it is fair use, but if they were to try to develop a product (software or hardware) and sell that in the medical field, I am certain the Microsoft and PrimeSense would be taking them to court.
Also, in relation to gaming consoles as generative platforms, I think that while we mention how aspects of computers are becoming more app based and less generative, it’s interesting to see how consoles are becoming more generative in a way. They are not simply for gaming, but now utilize and integrate Netflix, Hulu, play DVD/Blurays, Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. Though not generative in the original sense, allowing users to modify and tweak the software (at least legally or easily), these consoles are certainly moving towards computers in terms of variety of uses.
Here is an interesting article about Microsoft’s view of their Xbox 360 console.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/114/1144275p1.html
The EFF recently posted their coverage of the PS3 DCMA story. EFF’s fears are summarized by this chilling quote, “Sony’s core arguments — that it can silence speech that reveals security flaws using the DMCA and that the mere fact of a terms of use somewhere gives a company permanent and total control over what you do with a device under pain of criminal punishment — are both sweeping and frightening, and not just for gamers and computer researchers.”
The rhetoric of the different reports is very interesting to examine: notice that in the Guardian article, Hotz and his PS3 code-breaking predecessors are called “hackers”. In contrast, it is central to the argument of the EFF article that those same people be called “security researchers”. This brings up several questions to my mind about how one’s intentions in performing these actions can actually have legal repercussions: how can the courts distinguish between code breaking toward a destructive end, and code breaking to demonstrate the need for change? How can we, as witnesses, even tell the difference?
Another update on this case, posted yesterday in a Wired article: Judge Lets Sony Unmask Visitors to PS3-Jailbreaking Site.
Here’s something of interest: a Japanese programmer, who goes by Ogutti, hacked the Kinect and combined it with a Roomba to make a hands-free version of a standard vacuum. As an exercise, I think this was awesome, but most commenters just saw this as a step back from what the Roomba was designed to do. Still, if he isn’t profiting from it, who are we to stifle creativity and exploration, particularly if it aids the greater good? Yes, yes, “copyright,” “fair use,” “protecting intellectual property,” blah blah blah. That is all good and well, but it’s nice to think that people are doing things just to further their intellect and not simply to turn a profit. (Sorry, that was a big of a tangent!)
Hmm, I linked the video, but it’s hard to tell because it’s not underlined. Watch it here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/video-hacking-microsoft-kinect-and-a-roomba/