Hacking oscillscope options and selling it on Ebay

[maxtee]

Is it legal to Hack oscilloscope options and sell it on eBay for profit? I see this one eBay seller goes by the name "techman7734". I am pretty sure he is hacking options on the scopes and selling it on eBay. Here are some of his listings.
Now why some seller will hide the serial numbers and the option IDs in the eBay listings unless the seller is trying to hide something from the prying eyes of Keysight Incand Tektronix Inc.

"This is work?"  lol     It turns out that eBay seller "techman7734" is a long time user of the EEVBLOG. He uses this forum to hack his way to eBay sales.  He goes by eevblog screen name "Jwalling".

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Agilent-MSO8104A-4-channels-MSO-oscilloscope-1GHz-4GSa-s/323139197563?hash=item4b3c98da7b:g:ZR8AAOSwxfdap8Mm


https://www.ebay.com/itm/Agilent-DSO8104A-4-channels-DSO-oscilloscope-1GHz-4GSa-s-LOADED-From-a-DSO8064A/223059304284?hash=item33ef5edf5c%3Ag%3A7kUAAOSwtEVbSLf5&_sacat=0&_nkw=dso8064a&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=m570.l1313

[sokoloff]

Is it strictly legal to hack the scope? Probably not. You could probably even gin up a DMCA cryptographic protection circumvention case if you really crossed the wrong person.

That said, no one really cares (or seems to anyway).

That aside, is it legal to sell a scope on Ebay? Sure!

[coromonadalix]

and making a good profit

[AG6QR]

It's not legal to hack the scope, but a private individual doing so for personal use is probably unlikely to be noticed by anyone in a position to do anything about it.

It's OK to sell a scope on eBay.

But if one combines those two activities, and makes a business out of buying scopes, hacking them, and reselling them on eBay at a profit, they have now placed a target on their back, and are much more likely to draw the attention of someone would would prefer the law be enforced so that they could not do that.  Not just the manufacturer, but other sellers and distributors of that brand of products (and perhaps even competing products) might be somewhat motivated to do what they can to shut that sort of competition down.  They might get the help of eBay if they notified eBay and explained the situation in the right terms.  There's also the chance they could go through the court system to seek recourse.

[TERRA Operative]

All things aside, that is one ugly scope. Who designed that button layout?

[CJay]

Not legal and I seem to remember Daniel of Keysight saying they'd pursued a few people who had been hacking licences and selling them on 'scopes

[maxtee]

Funny, he took off the listing. The listing is not there any longer. I wonder if he is a member of EEVblog and actively reading EEvblog message boards. LOL
Anytime you see an eBay listing where the seller is trying to hide the unit serial number and the option ID is most likely options hacked.

[carl0s]

IMO it is totally dishonest and fraudulent because he is listing it as as a DSO8104A when it is really a DSO8064A.

If/when I sell my hacjked DS1054z, I will advertise it as a DS1054Z! I will mention that most people know they can be upgraded to 100Mhz and other options, turning it into a DS1104Z, but I would still list it as a DS1054Z or at most an 'unlocked DS1054Z'

[maxtee]

Wow, most of his listing seems to be "field upgraded" ... LOL

[innkeeper]

by hacking, i will refer strictly to modifying a piece of gear  to turn on a feature that the company charges for.

its all a matter of ethics to me...
its one thing to hack your own piece of equipment, you do it, you take the responsibility and risk for it, you're not doing it for profit, and likely you won't have otherwise bought those options. ... and ... you are not using it for any commercial purpose.
I know that sounds a lot like i'm making an excuse for the casual home hacker. and I am...to a point...you are not out making money off the company by hacking their gear.

it's totally unethical to hack a piece of new gear strictly to resell it for a profit or to then use that hacked gear to make money.

where it becomes gray for me is, hacking a piece of old gear no longer supported by the company.

in an example, is selling replacement roms or hard drive for an old piece of gear that happens to have all options enabled ... is it ethical.

[MadTux]

Who cares? As long as it meets specification, I don't care.
The only ripoff I see is that some manufactures artificially cripple their products to sell them for more money. I couldn't care less, if people remove these limitations.

[CJay]

Who cares? As long as it meets specification, I don't care.
The only ripoff I see is that some manufactures artificially cripple their products to sell them for more money. I couldn't care less, if people remove these limitations.

Selling hacked software for profit is acceptable then?

[MadTux]

Software != Hardware.
If I buy a scope, I buy hardware (with original EPROM/flash whatever) and I can do with it, whatever I like. If I modify the software and it gets better, it's not my problem, because I didn't buy the scope for the software, it came along and the manufaturer probably gives a damn, if I have problems with it.

Buying/selling cracked software is different, because I didn't buy the original CD/DVD whatever.

[innkeeper]

Who cares? As long as it meets specification, I don't care.
The only ripoff I see is that some manufactures artificially cripple their products to sell them for more money. I couldn't care less, if people remove these limitations.

Wake up McFly, you should care...

Why do you think a peace of "cripped" hardware is so cheap.  It is a marketing concept called a loss leader. its cheap because they're making a lot less and perhaps nothing on it, to get you in as a customer.  Although the concepts very, the hopes are you will buy the more expensive models for commercial use, or pay for upsells later, like software features, or hardware add-ons.

If this gets abused, it will go away, and by abused, I mean where the company sees no benefit in doing it anymore.

If your a hobbyist, or an engineer with a home lab, many of these companies love the idea that you buy one of their products, take it home and hack it  ..  Why, well simple, it is still the loss leader concept. they get you personally hooked on their product with the idea that when you make a decision on which product to by in your work environment that you will buy their full boat products because in your work environment you want the support of the unhacked versions or you simply need the more advanced product lines.

Some companies use this as a promotional tool, like Rigol, and Siglent. but some are the polar opposite, like Tektronix who actually went after places for publishing hacks of their equipment.

What happens if this is done on any level were companies like Rigol and Siglent are not benefiting from it, its simple, they will slam that door shut, and it will never open again.  and who suffers, it is the hobbyist.

for now, some companies turn an intentional blind eye toward the hacks as they see a benefit in this, they treat us right, we treat them right, we all benefit, they get more market share in the profitable commercial space, we get access to less expensive equipment.  People turning a profit on this on eBay is a threat to this balance.

[wraper]

and making a good profit

You barely will get any profit unless you hack what is normally unhackable for general user. Proven many times by hacked Rigol scopes selling for lower than new unhacked.

[MadTux]

Why do you think a peace of "cripped" hardware is so cheap.

Because they still make more than enough money with the crippled hardware. If rigol would sell the crippled models at a loss, they would be bankrupt by now.

It's just marketing department, trying to squeeze the last $$$ out of everyone.

[CJay]

Software != Hardware.
If I buy a scope, I buy hardware (with original EPROM/flash whatever) and I can do with it, whatever I like. If I modify the software and it gets better, it's not my problem, because I didn't buy the scope for the software, it came along and the manufaturer probably gives a damn, if I have problems with it.

Buying/selling cracked software is different, because I didn't buy the original CD/DVD whatever.

'Cracked software' is exactly what you are buying when you buy an 'upgraded' digital 'scope.

Make no mistake, I have no issue with unlocking it for personal use, I've done it, but I would not sell 'unlock' codes or a 'scope that'd been 'upgraded' using dodgy unlock codes, that's asking for trouble.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Tricky legal question - the software is contained in the scope, and the end-user has not signed any license agreement governing its usage, so no chance of any civil case for breaking any agreemant AIUI.
That leaves criminal law, and again it's going to boil down to detailed definitions,and details of local laws.
Firstly does a scope even come under laws designed to protect media and software used on general-purpose computers?
If an option cannot be purchased due to obsolescence, the OEM can't have suffered any financial loss as a result.
Would it come under DMCA ?
Is modifying the contents to enable functionality actually covered by any copyright-type legislation? - citations please.

I think it would be pretty hard to prove a case of enabling crippled hardware. Enabling software options are closer to more conventional copyright type situations.

Has anyone, ever, anywhere been prosecuted? Closest thing that comes to mind is modchips, but that was about facilitating copyright infringement of media/software.
Printer cartridge hading may be another comparison - ISTR companies have failed to bring cases for this.

 

[mzacharias]

I would definitely expect a "cease and desist" letter from their lawyers in short order.

They'd probably start with that. Until then you could probably pocket the cash.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I would definitely expect a "cease and desist" letter from their lawyers in short order.

They'd probably start with that. Until then you could probably pocket the cash.

I'm sure some manufacturers would start with that, as well as teh usual tricks to get Ebay to cancel listings, as that's cheap and quick to do, but it's questionable if they could (or would bother to) actually put an actual case together

[CJay]

I think it would be pretty hard to prove a case of enabling crippled hardware. Enabling software options are closer to more conventional copyright type situations.

Has anyone, ever, anywhere been prosecuted? Closest thing that comes to mind is modchips, but that was about facilitating copyright infringement of media/software.
Printer cartridge hading may be another comparison - ISTR companies have failed to bring cases for this.

I think enabling crippled hardware, removing bandwidth limiting features by changing or removing in them for instance, would be fair game, a bit like removing washers in moped exhausts to increase power, you bought the hardware and it only needs a hardware circuit mod to upgrade it.

Removing software locks/enabling features, dubious but if obsolete and no longer available for purchase, to my mind that's not unreasonable and while dubious the manufacturer would be hard pressed to do much more than bluster.

Enabling software features when the devices are in active support is where it gets dodgy, ISTR Daniel Bogdanoff has said that Agilent/Keysight take a dim view and action against people who sell equipment that's got hacked upgrades.

[rsjsouza]

Gosh, the discussion about the legality/morality of software-hacking test gear was already subject of massively long discussions around here.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/legal-to-hack-oscilloscope/

I tend to agree with others and see the main issue of selling hacked/modified gear as a numbers game: an A-brand manufacturer will only take someone else to court if it becomes epidemic or they see massive cashflow going to a single individual. Regarding proving losses and/or motives to still-in-production models, I suspect they would use the army of lawyers and eventually find a way to nail the defendant.

In most cases a simple letter would probably scare people away.

I think enabling crippled hardware, removing bandwidth limiting features by changing or removing in them for instance, would be fair game, a bit like removing washers in moped exhausts to increase power, you bought the hardware and it only needs a hardware circuit mod to upgrade it.

Removing software locks/enabling features, dubious but if obsolete and no longer available for purchase, to my mind that's not unreasonable and while dubious the manufacturer would be hard pressed to do much more than bluster.

Enabling software features when the devices are in active support is where it gets dodgy, ISTR Daniel Bogdanoff has said that Agilent/Keysight take a dim view and action against people who sell equipment that's got hacked upgrades.

I personally don't see the moral difference between HW and SW: if you are comfortable in considering a sale of a modified HW (one of the simplest is the conversion of a TDS744 into a 784), you should also be comfortable in doing so with SW.

[wasyoungonce]

i've seen Rigol DS1054Z listed 100Mhz out of the box known as "plus" or "Z" versons (some with clearly hacked options)..... from Amazon .... of course for increased price!

Oh well there is always a market and buyer

[CJay]

I personally don't see the moral difference between HW and SW: if you are comfortable in considering a sale of a modified HW (one of the simplest is the conversion of a TDS744 into a 784), you should also be comfortable in doing so with SW.

I haven't phrased it particuarly well but I meant hardware modding to be something akin to redesigning a bandwidth limited hardware defined filter in a 'scope to take advantage of the full bandwidth it's capable of or other such 'fundamental' hardware design change.

I think with the TDS744 you're still 'tricking' the firmware by changing a few 'jumpers' so it thinks it's a different model aren't you?

Don't misunderstand me though, I know it's a dubious moral area and I have no problem doing that for personal use (see the CMU200 feature unlocking thread I started), however, I feel that there's a moral distinction between that and trading in test gear which was bought specifically to unlock and resell with the extra features being a selling point, I regard that as little different from software piracy for profit, they probably didn't develop the hack themselves either so they're also taking advantage of the people who put in the effort to create it.

I've been on the receiving end of some heavy duty legal stuff from a few manufacturers in the dim and distant past* and it's not a nice place to be, especially if they pursue it.


*>30 years ago and Apple were very determined to stop us repairing their product as we weren't 'authorised'. Sadly for them, the law doesn't make desoldering chips and replacing them illegal, that didn't stop them trying a few times though, the other times the cease and desists landed from some other American companies our legal team told them American law doesn't apply in the UK and they went away with tails between their legs.

[rsjsouza]

I personally don't see the moral difference between HW and SW: if you are comfortable in considering a sale of a modified HW (one of the simplest is the conversion of a TDS744 into a 784), you should also be comfortable in doing so with SW.

I haven't phrased it particuarly well but I meant hardware modding to be something akin to redesigning a bandwidth limited hardware defined filter in a 'scope to take advantage of the full bandwidth it's capable of or other such 'fundamental' hardware design change.

I think with the TDS744 you're still 'tricking' the firmware by changing a few 'jumpers' so it thinks it's a different model aren't you?

Don't misunderstand me though, I know it's a dubious moral area and I have no problem doing that for personal use (see the CMU200 feature unlocking thread I started), however, I feel that there's a moral distinction between that and trading in test gear which was bought specifically to unlock and resell with the extra features being a selling point, I regard that as little different from software piracy for profit, they probably didn't develop the hack themselves either so they're also taking advantage of the people who put in the effort to create it.

I see your point. I agree that part of the "worth" of a hack is on its difficulty level and another is the ease of reproducibility (in the past and without the internet, a third aspect of worth used to be the publishing media of the hack - a magazine, a technical journal - but that is gone now).

Despite the paradigm of software certainly changed the perceived level of "worth" of hacks (the highest belonging to the original hacker regardless of its nature), in my opinion they are fundamentally identical - either if you are fixing the hardware entirely (project Yaigol comes to mind), the bootloader settings of a processor (the TDA case) or a simple passcode (Riglol).

Regarding reproducibility, the original discoverers of these hacks are absolutely brilliant and hold the most value (which gives the perception that they deserve to profit from it) but as the method is shared, a true hardware redesign hack (Yaigol) holds more value than a very simple Riglol one.

Therefore I think the moral conflict of profiting from a hack ends up being governed by the unwritten rule that evaluates its worth.

*>30 years ago and Apple were very determined to stop us repairing their product as we weren't 'authorised'. Sadly for them, the law doesn't make desoldering chips and replacing them illegal, that didn't stop them trying a few times though, the other times the cease and desists landed from some other American companies our legal team told them American law doesn't apply in the UK and they went away with tails between their legs.

Interesting you say that; about the same time Apple was going after clone manufacturers all around the world and put the now harmless "easter eggs" in their software to be able to prove in international courts the violation of their IPs - I suspect that going after repair shops was part of their cloning-averse ethos at the time.