seems to me that this judge is trying to discriminate what 'fair use' is, depending on what the hardware is, not what it is used for. this is going to bode badly for everyone, except, as usual, the 'entertainment industries'. he is also making an assumption that the xbox 360 will be used for illegal game play, not for running 'home brew'. whether or not that is true, using it for 'home brew' should not be prevented, nor should the use of back up copies of legally bought games etc. had all funtions within that hardware been enabled from day one there would not be the need to 'adapt' it. had these industries made disks that were, as originally advertised, 'virtually indestructable' (that was an obvious lie, but took time before it was realised), back ups would not be needed. why should someone have to purchase and repurchase the same thing, just because it has been used a lot? why should a person be completely limited to how a piece of legally bought hardware is used, simply because the manufacturer doesn't like it? why should a person not be able to sell something they dont want any more, simply because the maker only wants 'new' bought? how long before it is 'illegal' to sell or buy anything 2nd hand? yet again, greed and control are the most important things. once an item is bought, the buyers being completely ignored, until the next time a company wants an item bought! and to try to stop a witness from giving evidence, because it will probably be understood by the court (and jury?) which could totally expose what is really going on is disgusting. hope the judge doesn't fall for this, but bet he does (maybe after some 'incentive?)!