Not necessarily. There are contradictions in statues, case precedent, etc. And I haven't even gone into what happens when you cross international boundaries! That's why I said it was a gray area. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] elmicker Circumvention of security protections for personal use is well within the bounds of fair use. It's almost exactly what fair use was intended for.[/quote] There's nothing I can really say here other than that you're wrong. Go talk to an IP lawyer. This is a common misunderstanding - but that's why the rule is written as it is. [quote]Actually, it's the opposite. It's a whole lot of tiny little black and white areas. I'm trying to say that's exactly what it is and that's why your broad rule doesn't work. The situation isn't clear-cut so a clear-cut rule doesn't work. This is one situation where a verbose explanation of what you mean really would be better than brevity.[/quote] [quote]Sorry, this is exactly my point. I'm [b]not[/b] reading into it. To come to the conclusion that "Kinect hacks are cool, so they're ok" while "Mod chips aren't cool, so don't go there" you've got to read quite a lot into and around the rule. You've even included an addendum that appears to say, or at least has been interpreted to say, that you want to cover everything, even if it's in good faith. The rule's barely been in place hours and you've already got a confused message.[/quote] Yes, a few hours and all of what, three people seem to not understand? I'm sorry, but you have not successfully convinced me that there is a problem here with this minor rule, since your entire premise is based on a flawed understand of the issue at play.