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.

[Jwillis]

I would say "it depends" .If you buy a new price of hardware and "Hack" it for a profit ,I myself would not buy it.Because hacking voids any warranty.
If you buy a used piece and modify it then theirs likely no warranty any way, so buyer beware.
Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

[CJay]

Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

There is a great similarity between modifying classic cars for resale and enabling options on test gear, you have to buy the parts for the car before you fit them, the checkout receipt is analogous to your licence code.

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

There is a great similarity between modifying classic cars for resale and enabling options on test gear, you have to buy the parts for the car before you fit them, the checkout receipt is analogous to your licence code.

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

No it isn't. It's like modifying the camshaft to get more performance

[mikeselectricstuff]

I would say "it depends" .If you buy a new price of hardware and "Hack" it for a profit ,I myself would not buy it.Because hacking voids any warranty.
If you buy a used piece and modify it then theirs likely no warranty any way, so buyer beware.   

I believe In the EU at least, it would only void the warranty if it could be shown that the hack was the cause of any fault, though the manufacturer's policy on warranty transferability may also come into play

[CJay]

Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

There is a great similarity between modifying classic cars for resale and enabling options on test gear, you have to buy the parts for the car before you fit them, the checkout receipt is analogous to your licence code.

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

No it isn't. It's like modifying the camshaft to get more performance

Fair point, but would you be happy for me to buy your products, hack your code and sell your products on as 'upgraded'?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

There is a great similarity between modifying classic cars for resale and enabling options on test gear, you have to buy the parts for the car before you fit them, the checkout receipt is analogous to your licence code.

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

No it isn't. It's like modifying the camshaft to get more performance

Fair point, but would you be happy for me to buy your products, hack your code and sell your products on as 'upgraded'?

No, but it would be my fault for not taking sufficient steps to secure it.

[CJay]

Theirs really no difference between modifying a piece electronic test gear or modifying a classic Chevy and reselling it.
If you Hack protected code and sell the code separately on ebay, that's copy write infringement/ piracy and subject to the penalties in what ever country you reside.     

There is a great similarity between modifying classic cars for resale and enabling options on test gear, you have to buy the parts for the car before you fit them, the checkout receipt is analogous to your licence code.

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

No it isn't. It's like modifying the camshaft to get more performance

Fair point, but would you be happy for me to buy your products, hack your code and sell your products on as 'upgraded'?

No, but it would be my fault for not taking sufficient steps to secure it.

You could certainly take more care to ensure it doesn't happen but there still has to be a level of dishonesty on my part if I hack it surely?

Again with the analogies, sorry, but I guess it's roughly similar to leaving a mobile phone on a car seat with an open window, it's not likely to be there when you get back to the car, it means you're a prat but that doesn't mean the person who took it is blameless, they're still a thief.

[bd139]

I’m on the fence here. I spent 2 years helping a company through a software unlocking and reverse engineering court case. There were no winners. The vendor couldn’t uphold their claim that it was illegal as if the hardware is capable and is being artificially limited by software there is not a case to uphold because you’re buying a tangible item without license and any EULA is strictly non enforceable and does not constitute a contract plus reverse engineering for compatibility is allowed. The other side of the case burned a cool half a million on defending their rights, much more than the damn thing was worth.

All this literally gets decided by who can afford the best legal guys. The law is vague in all countries. Most of the enforceability comes from firing sueballs.

This is why software is moving to a rental model more than any other reason, even above reliable revenue.

tl;dr: law is a cocked up mess and whoever has the most amount of money will probably win but there are really no winners so it’s better to shut up and keep your head down than rock the boat on either side.

Edit: I’m not sure that market segmentation and paid up feature adds isn’t dishonest merely a convenient status quo for the vendors. Look at what happened to EA over micro payments as well.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I’m on the fence here. I spent 2 years helping a company through a software unlocking and reverse engineering court case.

is this documented anywhere ?

[bd139]

Unfortunately no as both parties pulled out in the end before judgement so there's nothing on public record. 2 years was mainly muck slinging and legal tennis.

This annoyed the shit out of me to be honest as I was going to leverage the involvement for contract work 

[CJay]

Well that sucks.

There is Mars Vs Teknowledge.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Modifying a 'scope with a hacked licence is the equivalent of picking up a camshaft in an auto parts store and walking out without paying for it.

So I can't poke random option unlock codes in my own Rigol? Is it a crime?

[CJay]

Depends on the laws of your land, personally I'd have at it and enjoy the extra functions but I'd be wary of advertising it as hacked when I resold it but my main point is that it's a very dodgy proposition to make a business out of selling stuff you've hacked.

[Zucca]

This should be moved to "General Chat", there is no repair info here.

[bd139]

Depends on the laws of your land, personally I'd have at it and enjoy the extra functions but I'd be wary of advertising it as hacked when I resold it but my main point is that it's a very dodgy proposition to make a business out of selling stuff you've hacked.

Exactly. You won't go to prison but be prepared to get reamed by legal professionals anyway.

Mine is cracked. If I sell it I'm not going to state that it is.

[CJay]

Depends on the laws of your land, personally I'd have at it and enjoy the extra functions but I'd be wary of advertising it as hacked when I resold it but my main point is that it's a very dodgy proposition to make a business out of selling stuff you've hacked.

Exactly. You won't go to prison but be prepared to get reamed by legal professionals anyway.

Mine is cracked. If I sell it I'm not going to state that it is.

I've noticed the hackable test gear tends not to depreciate as much as the unhackable stuff, make of that what you will.

[bd139]

Indeed. That's one reason I bought a DS1054Z. If it wasn't crackable I doubt I'd have made the purchase either to be honest as well.

[Muttley Snickers]

Here is a current listing on Ebay Australia for a DS-1054Z which is described as having a number of "factory unlocked options", now with all due respect to the seller these could in fact be genuine factory options or it could all be bullshit just to inflate the price, if it were later found by the buyer of this scope that these options were in fact not factory unlocked would that then be a valid case for a not as described claim ?. Shouldn't there be additional documentation included to confirm the legitimacy of these features ?.

I'm currently unable to grab a snapshot of the listing to post for posterity due to this devices limitations so here is the listing below.

https:///www.ebay.com.au/itm/Rigol-DS1054Z/113150576581?

[rsjsouza]

Indeed. That's one reason I bought a DS1054Z. If it wasn't crackable I doubt I'd have made the purchase either to be honest as well.

IMHO that is the main reason why Rigol kept dominance over the entry level market for so much time: they left the hackers of the DS1054Z alone and kept the trend they set with the DS1052E before that.

Here is a current listing on Ebay Australia for a DS-1054Z which is described as having a number of "factory unlocked options", now with all due respect to the seller these could in fact be genuine factory options or it could all be bullshit just to inflate the price, if it were later found by the buyer of this scope that these options were in fact not factory unlocked would that then be a valid case for a not as described claim ?. Shouldn't there be additional documentation included to confirm the legitimacy of these features ?.

I'm currently unable to grab a snapshot of the listing to post for posterity due to this devices limitations so here is the listing below.

https:///www.ebay.com.au/itm/Rigol-DS1054Z/113150576581?

It was not long ago that Rigol started running a promo where all decoding options were unlocked. Since the listing mentions the oscilloscope is "brand new in box" with several decoding options unlocked but still shows 50MHz bandwidth, I think it is a legitimate listing.

[maxtee]

I believe hacking for personal curiosity and learning is OK or should be OK as long as you are not making it a business like the eBay seller mentioned in the first posting. He has figured out a way to hack Flexlm license file on Agilent Infiniium typer scope. If you look at his listings, pretty much all the Agilent Infiniium sold by the seller has exact same options and the serial numbers and the option IDs are hidden in the listing.

[Jwillis]

If you sell the unit as "modified" or "As Is"That is legal.At least here in Canada .
If you extract the code that has been modified and sell it on a disc, that will get you in trouble.

[andy2000]

Enabling options that were available on a product and then selling it is very questionable, but I don't have a problem doing it for personal use.  If it was ever calibrated, or serviced by the manufacturer you might run into trouble, like losing the options.  You're bypassing a software lock, even if it's a weak one.

I don't have any problem with hardware modifications like making a 1GHz TDS744 (as long as you don't try to pass it off as a genuine TDS784).  For one thing, Tek never sold a 1 GHz option for the TDS744, and never offered to upgrade their bandwidth after purchase.  Your not trying to bypass keys, or other protections, you're just making circuit modifications.  Then there's the matter of spending hours recalibrating it to 1 GHz, and there's no guarantee it will successfully calibrate to 1 GHz.  Finally, any hardware modifications would surely void the warranty, which seems like a fair trade for any loss to the manufacturer. 

It's like buying a car without the turbo option, and then adding it yourself.  Just don't try to claim it has the factory turbo when you sell it, or expect the warranty to cover any damage to the engine.  On the other hand, buying a car without GPS and then hacking the software to enable it is a different matter.

[cowasaki]

The legality of parts of what you are talking about depends on where you are too. If you live in the UK and buy that scope it is your scope which you can hack as much as you like. You will break the warranty possibly and certainly end user agreements etc but neither is criminal. The most that the company could do is take out a civil case which is highly unlikely.

If you hack a scope and sell it on eBay as the higher model then that is fraud by false representation and a criminal matter.

If you hack a scope and sell it on eBay as the lower model but hacked you are back with the civil issues plus Ebay’s user rules which might get your losing removed.

Other country’s laws may be different.

[bd139]

To note I saw a DS1054Z advertised here in the UK which had been cracked to 100MHz for sale at £500. I bet they won't sell that

[mikeselectricstuff]

If you hack a scope and sell it on eBay as the lower model but hacked you are back with the civil issues plus Ebay’s user rules which might get your losing removed.

There are no civil issues as nobody signed a license agreement

[maxtee]

It looks like that particular eBay seller is a regular visitor of EEVblog and in some of his posts, he has been asking for Agilent dso8000 lic file from other members. LOL

[cowasaki]

If you hack a scope and sell it on eBay as the lower model but hacked you are back with the civil issues plus Ebay’s user rules which might get your losing removed.

There are no civil issues as nobody signed a license agreement

I’m not talking about breach of a license agreement which isn’t signed. You could be sued for loss of profit or similar based on opening up an option which would be paid for and selling that. There would be a civil redress albeit unlikely.

[maxtee]

eBay seller mentioned in the original message identity is revealed.

[Chris56000]

Hi!

Equipment like DSOs, SAs, VNAs, etc., etc., DOES have licence agreements for the associated software and/or firmware that is an essential part of it's function – it may not have been packed in as a separate paper document, but it will almost certainly be on the support cd or downloads, and firmware updates, etc., often require acceptance of terms before the download link is made available!

I have no quibble with hacking or modding gear unofficially for personal use, research and development, but selling it as "upgraded" on any site for profit is unethical, breaches UK Trades Descriptions legislation, and moreover it won't be supported by the OEM if it corrupts, etc!

Apart from that, there is the very real danger, as another Member pointed out, that the OEM will bang this door very firmly shut in a way to stop this, and I'm sure they're quite capable (on equipment used with an online connection) of permanently disabling "hacked" T & M remotely until the licence key, etc., is officially obtained, and in such a scenario they could insist on a much higher price than the upgrade bought legitimately in the first place!

Chris Williams

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

[CJay]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

When hasn't it been legal to check licensing/entitlement as part of an upgrade/update, you'd be upset if you lost legitimately licensed options if it wasn't done wouldn't you?

I don't see why a manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to check that licences are legitimate and disable them if they aren't, disabling an entire machine is dodgy, it's no more than MS or Apple do if they detect a dodgy licence or jailbroken OS and they seem to be on the right side of the law?

If you've messed about with an executable to enable those options or bypass licence entitlements how do you guarantee a future upgrade/update won't unintentionally brick your machine?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

When hasn't it been legal to check licensing/entitlement as part of an upgrade/update, you'd be upset if you lost legitimately licensed options if it wasn't done wouldn't you?

I don't see why a manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to check that licences are legitimate and disable them if they aren't, disabling an entire machine is dodgy, it's no more than MS or Apple do if they detect a dodgy licence or jailbroken OS and they seem to be on the right side of the law?

If you've messed about with an executable to enable those options or bypass licence entitlements how do you guarantee a future upgrade/update won't unintentionally brick your machine?

You can give a warning that new software may not work on hardware and "coincidentally" render it inoperable.
To intentionally brick a hacked device without warning would almost certainly be a criminal offence in some countries and probably at least actionalble under civil law in most. This is why FTDI went very quiet, deleted tweets etc. at the start of the FTDIgate debacle when it became clear the new driver was being silently installed as part of windows updates. 

[cowasaki]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

When hasn't it been legal to check licensing/entitlement as part of an upgrade/update, you'd be upset if you lost legitimately licensed options if it wasn't done wouldn't you?

I don't see why a manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to check that licences are legitimate and disable them if they aren't, disabling an entire machine is dodgy, it's no more than MS or Apple do if they detect a dodgy licence or jailbroken OS and they seem to be on the right side of the law?

If you've messed about with an executable to enable those options or bypass licence entitlements how do you guarantee a future upgrade/update won't unintentionally brick your machine?

You can give a warning that new software may not work on hardware and "coincidentally" render it inoperable.
To intentionally brick a hacked device without warning would almost certainly be a criminal offence in some countries and probably at least actionalble under civil law in most. This is why FTDI went very quiet, deleted tweets etc. at the start of the FTDIgate debacle when it became clear the new driver was being silently installed as part of windows updates.

I don't think there was any come back on them though!  I bought 10 FT232RL devices from China stupidly cheap and the first four worked absolutely fine.  (I've not used the others yet).  I was expecting them to go wrong but it hasn't happened yet.

[FrankBuss]

eBay seller mentioned in the original message identity is revealed.

Would it even work to get a license file? IIRC when I bought a license to unlock a feature of my Agilent scope (before I unlocked all other options myself, was trivial with IDA Pro), I had to provide my serial number. So I guess the license file works only on a scope with the same serial number.

And right, Daniel Bogdanoff from Keysight said they don't go after users who hack their scopes. But as soon as you try to sell your hack, you are in trouble:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dsox2000-and-3000-series-licence-have-anyone-tried-to-hack-that-scope/msg1153282/#msg1153282

Probably even if you publish your hack for free. If they sue you, it doesn't matter if it is legal or illegal, it would be very annoying and you would probably need a lot of money for a lawyer, and you would be a long time in courtrooms. Not worth the trouble.

[CJay]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

When hasn't it been legal to check licensing/entitlement as part of an upgrade/update, you'd be upset if you lost legitimately licensed options if it wasn't done wouldn't you?

I don't see why a manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to check that licences are legitimate and disable them if they aren't, disabling an entire machine is dodgy, it's no more than MS or Apple do if they detect a dodgy licence or jailbroken OS and they seem to be on the right side of the law?

If you've messed about with an executable to enable those options or bypass licence entitlements how do you guarantee a future upgrade/update won't unintentionally brick your machine?

You can give a warning that new software may not work on hardware and "coincidentally" render it inoperable.
To intentionally brick a hacked device without warning would almost certainly be a criminal offence in some countries and probably at least actionalble under civil law in most. This is why FTDI went very quiet, deleted tweets etc. at the start of the FTDIgate debacle when it became clear the new driver was being silently installed as part of windows updates.

How much warning though, it'd be hard to argue illegality as you'd have to admit your own actions, especially if it's in the T&Cs of the update  (two wrongs not making a right of course)?

It'd be terrible publicity for the manufacturer of course so they'd have to think long and hard before doing it.

FTDI dealt with the whole problem really badly, IMHO they could have made it a positive thing for sales by adding a pop up that informed users the chip was counterfeit and/or refused to update instead of being so underhand, instead they cost themselves a lot of good faith and reputation.

That whole debacle cost a client some rather expensive energy consumption monitors made by a company that'd bought chips through a broker when FTDI couldn't supply them...

[rsjsouza]

Since when is it legal to wreck/mess with somebody else's machine remotely?

When hasn't it been legal to check licensing/entitlement as part of an upgrade/update, you'd be upset if you lost legitimately licensed options if it wasn't done wouldn't you?

I don't see why a manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to check that licences are legitimate and disable them if they aren't, disabling an entire machine is dodgy, it's no more than MS or Apple do if they detect a dodgy licence or jailbroken OS and they seem to be on the right side of the law?

If you've messed about with an executable to enable those options or bypass licence entitlements how do you guarantee a future upgrade/update won't unintentionally brick your machine?

You can give a warning that new software may not work on hardware and "coincidentally" render it inoperable.
To intentionally brick a hacked device without warning would almost certainly be a criminal offence in some countries and probably at least actionalble under civil law in most. This is why FTDI went very quiet, deleted tweets etc. at the start of the FTDIgate debacle when it became clear the new driver was being silently installed as part of windows updates.

I agree that bricking a device is borderline criminal, but a few years ago I have experienced software being uninstalled depending on where your device is located: my dad bought a Samsung Galaxy tab in US and installed a bunch of applications. Took it to Brazil with him, and magically several applications were uninstalled.

This happened a few years ago, but it certainly left a bad taste in his mouth regarding the amount of power a publisher had over his device.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

Without having read through this thread, I'll say this.

1. We're not going to come after you if you hack a scope.
2. We might get involved if you make a habit of up-hacking and re-selling them with options/paid-capabilities you didn't pay for.

We've had to work with a couple different people hacking & selling "upgraded" scopes on eBay.

[maxtee]

It is funny Daniel, it looks like he read your comments and removed all the options from the Agilent scopes he listed on eBay with hacks.  It is funny he wants to talk about ethics in some of his other posts. You should also check the serial numbers on the Agilent scopes he is selling.

[maxtee]

It looks like eBay seller "techman7734" is back to his old tricks again (hacking options on Keysight oscilloscopes). He just changed the wording in the listing.

[rsjsouza]

I really couldn't find evidence of actual hacking, although the serial numbers are covered.

If he is indeed hacking, it would be quite silly given that one of the photographs has his business card with a company name and phone - easier to crackdown.