Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Tim Wescott on 31 Mar 2010 12:55 John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski > <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 1, 1:14 am, John Larkin >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >>>> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >>>> padlock in the least. Would you? >>> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. >> Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- >> produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the >> 4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, >> and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the >> 3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of >> the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing >> 4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less >> money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones >> Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut >> costs, and their children go hungry. >> >> Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story? >> > > It's too hypothetical. Each extra room costs real money to build and > has real value on the market. IP costs real money to develop, has > market value, but costs nothing to reproduce. That's why an EDA vendor > can charge you $60K for each copy of a DVD, and why the law protects > their right to do so. > > There's a clear legal distinction between physical property and > intellectual property. If the hardware wasn't capable of 100MHz, then the software wouldn't make it so. Therefore, flipping a software switch is just like cutting a lock. If it needs a completely different load of software to do 100MHz, then the manufacturer is playing games with the law. >>> Jones >>> has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is >>> probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at >>> least. >> I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what >> the crime was. > > Under US law, I belive it's criminal conspiracy to use a computer to > hack software for profit. Which I think is illegal. Define "hack". And yes, it is probably illegal, and if he's really hacking it by my definition of hack, then wrongly so. If he's taking a software load from another Rigol scope, and that load is under copyright, then that's going beyond hacking. If he's finding a way to reach in there and flip a switch to turn on the 100MHz capability, then that should be legal. >>> So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the >>> whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real >>> revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. >> Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. > > Well, I do. Especially telling the world how to do it, which will cost > Rigel serious revenue. Arresting a career criminal will cost him serious revenue -- should we refrain from that? Preventing Kennith Lay from raping Enron would have cost him serious revenue, had someone done it -- had it been legally possible, should we have refrained? Making food manufacturers print lists of ingredients on their products, and insisting that what they produce is safe no doubt costs them serious revenue -- should we stop? The digital copyright protection act gives IP providers extreme and egregious tools to extort money from consumers, and repealing it would cost them serious revenue when they use it to do things that are just plain wrong. Should we refrain from repealing it? -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: Dave Platt on 31 Mar 2010 12:47 Quite orthogonal to all of the commentary so far... when viewing the YouTube video of the hack, I accidentally turned on the "closed-caption decoder" feature in the playback (up-arrow at the lower right corner of the window). The result was... well, interesting. The closest analogy I can come up with at the moment is "beatnik free verse". I think the auto-transcription feature being used has a problem with David's accent :-) -- Dave Platt <dplatt(a)radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
From: Fred Bartoli on 31 Mar 2010 13:12 John Larkin a �crit : > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:19:00 -0400, Spehro Pefhany > <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:53:03 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me. >>> >>> John >> What makes you think he hurt Rigol? They've have probably just sold >> dozens of scope to people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a scope >>from a Chinese maker. >> Most companies will continue to buy what's guaranteed. >> >> He might have hurt or helped them. > > I'm sure that some people who would have bought the 100M version will > buy the 50 and hack it. Not many, I expect, mostly amateurs. But he > chose to make this option available to the public where Rigol did not. > > So why did he do it? > > John > Just suppose that Rigol isn't so dumb and that they've done this on purpose so that when the word of mouse spreads they sell tons of 50MHz scopes because buyers will be supposed to have a bargain... Who's weird? (well not me) -- Thanks, Fred.
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 13:21 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 1, 12:01�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> People buy the standard and Pro versions of Windows knowing the only >> difference is a few flags. Windows consumer versions are brain-damaged >> to allow only a small number of network connections at a time, and >> cost almost nothing bundled with a PC. Windows Server removes the >> limit and costs about $2K. > >Well, not really. You don't buy the software, you only license it. You >have to agree to the EULA for it to install. If you figure out how to >use regedit to enable certain features, it isn't illegal to tell >people how to do so (of course they may be violating the EULA if they >do) > >> It's Rigol's choice how to price their products and amortize their >> engineering. Buying their 50 MHz scope and hacking it, and gleefully >> telling the world how to do it, it is essentially vandalism. Legally, >> it may be criminal conspiracy to use a computer to commit a crime. > >Hang on a second. It's only Rigol's scope until I buy it. When I buy >it, it's mine. Not theirs. You don't have to sign an agreement that >says you won't modify it. > >What crime is possibly being committed? It may be a felony under DCMA. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. John
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 13:29
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:55:36 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Al Borowski >> <al.borowski(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 1, 1:14 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> If I bought a house, and it included an extra bedroom that wasn't >>>>> advertised and was padlocked shut, I wouldn't feel guilty breaking the >>>>> padlock in the least. Would you? >>>> No. But that costs the seller nothing, and is perfectly legal. >>> Suppose (bear with me) the builder's business model was to mass- >>> produce 4 bedroom houses, but offer a cheaper '3 bedroom' one with the >>> 4th bedromm locked behind a $2 padlock. Suppose Mike figures this out, >>> and tells the world 'Hey, if you need a 4 bedroom house, just buy the >>> 3 bedroom one from Jones Brothers, move the supplied wardrobe out of >>> the way, cut the lock and you have an extra bedroom'. Families needing >>> 4 bedroom houses read this advice and do so, meaning they spend less >>> money on the house then they would otherwise. This deprives Jones >>> Brothers of income they'd otherwise recieve. Jones Brothers has to cut >>> costs, and their children go hungry. >>> >>> Who, if anyone, do you think is in the wrong in the above story? >>> >> >> It's too hypothetical. Each extra room costs real money to build and >> has real value on the market. IP costs real money to develop, has >> market value, but costs nothing to reproduce. That's why an EDA vendor >> can charge you $60K for each copy of a DVD, and why the law protects >> their right to do so. >> >> There's a clear legal distinction between physical property and >> intellectual property. > >If the hardware wasn't capable of 100MHz, then the software wouldn't >make it so. Therefore, flipping a software switch is just like cutting >a lock. If it needs a completely different load of software to do >100MHz, then the manufacturer is playing games with the law. > >>>> Jones >>>> has cost Rigel a lot, now and in the future. And the way he did it is >>>> probably criminal conspiracy to commit a computer crime, by US law at >>>> least. >>> I'm not denying it might cost Rigol some cash, but I fail to see what >>> the crime was. >> >> Under US law, I belive it's criminal conspiracy to use a computer to >> hack software for profit. Which I think is illegal. > >Define "hack". And yes, it is probably illegal, and if he's really >hacking it by my definition of hack, then wrongly so. > >If he's taking a software load from another Rigol scope, and that load >is under copyright, then that's going beyond hacking. If he's finding a >way to reach in there and flip a switch to turn on the 100MHz >capability, then that should be legal. > >>>> So, why did he do it, specifically why did he post a video showing the >>>> whole world how to do it? He had to know it would cost Rigel real >>>> revenue, and must have decided that they didn't deserve that revenue. >>> Personally I don't see it as morally wrong in the least. >> >> Well, I do. Especially telling the world how to do it, which will cost >> Rigel serious revenue. > >Arresting a career criminal will cost him serious revenue -- should we >refrain from that? > >Preventing Kennith Lay from raping Enron would have cost him serious >revenue, had someone done it -- had it been legally possible, should we >have refrained? > >Making food manufacturers print lists of ingredients on their products, >and insisting that what they produce is safe no doubt costs them serious >revenue -- should we stop? > >The digital copyright protection act gives IP providers extreme and >egregious tools to extort money from consumers, and repealing it would >cost them serious revenue when they use it to do things that are just >plain wrong. Should we refrain from repealing it? How does DCMA extort money from customers? If you don't like a product and its price/terms, don't buy it. DCMA prevents you from using a computer to violate the contract you made with the seller, and from spreading around copies of his IP. If you want to repeal DCMA, write to your Congressman or whatever. Get rid of the patent office while you're at it. John |