DMCA Invoked Against Garage Door Openers 563
boijames writes "In the latest bit of DMCA lunacy, copyright guru David Nimmer turned me
onto a case that his firm is defending, where a garage door opener
company (The Chamberlain Group) has leveled a DMCA claim (among other
claims) against the maker of universal garage door remotes (Skylink)."
This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
that way maybe legislators and voters will see the lunacy in all its perverted glory.
in Soviet Russia the DCMA invokes YOU.
This is good.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jaysyn
I wouldn't be surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal Remotes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH this is a good opportunity for emerging countries less regarding on these aspects.
The transition (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only really useful now because there was no real legal teeth for this sort of thing in copyright law until the DMCA. It specifically references technological issues, it is vague as to what it covers, and it carries criminal penelties.
Look for more patent style/interoperability contests to be faught through the DMCA.
Different look (Score:2, Insightful)
"the general public"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does actually make some sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
Garage door openers use code hopping and many other kinds of security. The days of CB and dip switch hacking to open garage doors are over. So, yes, this lawsuit is pure bull. It is not about making remotes that bypass the security. It is about making cheap universal remotes that compete with the $67.00 Gene(tm) replacement remote that you lost somewhere in the landscaping.
Welcome to America (Score:1, Insightful)
Home of the Free my ass. Swept up in a wave of post 9/11 nationalism Bush still has a 58% approval rating. Notice the rumsfeld quote "The failure of U.N. arms inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction "could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation" with U.N. disarmament resolutions, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday.
What a bunch of bullshit. Since you cannot prove a negative I guess we should trash our whole system of innocent until guilty. We really need to take a long look in the mirror before we send our military personel off to die. I guess it's good for North Korea they don't have oil reserves or we would have already invaded.
Bush is a fucking fool as are those that voted for him.
Bleak outlook... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
Sadly, I think the only thing going through Congressmen's minds when they pass laws is somthing along the lines of:
Yes, I am an American, and proud to say so. But, I am also embarassed by so many of our politicians, or should I say, our corporate-controlled politicians. Sad but true, Corporate America is the aristocracy of the new world.
I went through years of school where I was taught that we fought for independence from Great Britain because of taxation without representation and a lack of other such basic freedoms.
And now we're faced with pretty much the same thing. Sure, we elect politicians. But the corporations pay for their campaigns, shower them with "perks" (aka: legal bribes), and tell them how to vote. Sure, frivolous claims such as this garage door crap is going to make people realize the DMCA is stupid. But it's most likely corporations, rather than constituents, will control how the DMCA is modified.
Initial Musings on Commerce and Property (Score:5, Insightful)
I own an opener for that door. I even own the remote.
By, "I own", I mean it's my property -- it's not like I'm in some strange "leasing" arrangement, where, say, I need to ask permission from the last person who owned the garage door if it's OK now to open it on up.
See, it's mine. I can do with it what I want. If the guy who sold me the door says I can't do what I want with it, I say, he shouldn't have taken my credit card. It's not his property anymore, it's mine.
And if he says the door was his idea, his "intellectual property", I'll kindly point out that, er, that's nice, see that door? It's my door. Not your door. My door. My very nice door, sure -- great ideas behind it, I don't usually buy products with crappy ideas behind them. I think the goodness of the idea was inherent in me providing that money the guy so happily accepted.
So, er, bugger off.
Ah, now it comes time to paint the door. Excuse me. Paint *my* door. What the hell? There's some "anti-stick" teflon coating on my door?
It's illegal for me to remove this stuff? Isn't it mine?
I'm supposed to buy a new door, whole new color? But I already own a door, and the paint on that door. Isn't it all mine?
If I remove the surface, I go to jail?
If someone removes *my* Teflon (I may not want it, but I sure got it -- sort of like excessive packaging) and paint *my* door the color *I* want it, *I've* got a cellmate?
Now how exactly is this door mine?
And if I don't really own the door, do they really own the money I paid for it with?
I bet if I move, I have to burn the door down and leave the next owner to buy one of their own...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:Master Lock vs. AA Locksmith (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what Chamberlin is saying is that their GDO technology effectively has "do not duplicate" on it, and Skylink is simply ignoring it.
Plus the key copying example isn't really a good analogy in this case, since in order to make a copy of a physical key, you must first POSSESS the physical key (well I know not necessarily, but in the most common use case you do). Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to be able to sue someone who creates a dupe of a key since the person wanting the dupe already has a working key in possession. A better example (though still not perfect) would be that of a locksmith who sold MASTER keys to anyone.
DMCA 80's style (Score:4, Insightful)
And what does this mean for my darth maul tie-fighter univeral TV remote?
Re:Does actually make some sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhow.. there are a a couple of bizarre points brought up by the lawyers. Firstly, they reckon that Skylink's transmitters "when set to operate Chamberlain's rolling code GDOs, have no other purpose or use than to circumvent Chamberlain's technological protective measure". Does "opening my garage door so I can get the car in" not count as a use? Secondly, they claim that "Skylink's [] transmitters are marketed for use in circumventing Chamberlain's technological protective measures", and go on to explain that Skylink "promotes its universal transmitters as additional transmitters to be used with Chamberlain's rolling code GDO systems". I could understand it if Skylink promoted it's transmitters as "great for bypassing the security measures on your neighbour's Chamberlain garage door".
It seems to imply that the sole use of the Skylink device is to gain unauthorised access to other people's property. However, that clearly isn't the case. Just like DeCSS, it can be used for legal and illegal purposes. Unless Skylink's intentions can be proven to be to develop the transmitter primarily for illegal purposes - which I'm also fairly sure isn't the case - then this should be thrown out. Of course, this all relies on common sense being applied, with which the DMCA seems to be mutually exclusive...
Re:You did miss something (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice troll, Michael (Score:3, Insightful)
Duty to obey it?... maybe. Duty to cherish it?... no way.
The First Amendment is very clear that everybody has the right to petition the government. We don't have to like the laws that are passed. Furthermore we have the right to ask our elected legislators to reverse their previous decisions. And if we really don't like our government the entire lawmaking system can be flushed out within six years or less, with a majority being overtaken in less than four years.
Re:You did miss something (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You did miss something (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, I've got this list of numbers for you. Each number is between 0 and 255. What possible use could you put this list of numbers to? Try this just for fun. Make a file of bytes represented by these numbers. Name the file Windows2000.iso. I think you can figure out what to do next.
I wish lists of numbers weren't copyrightable. After all, all Napster did was broker the exchange of lists of numbers. They didn't even exchange the numbers themselves.
Re:All Your Base Indeed... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me see if I can make this more clear. Company A does not like competition from company B. What company B did makes company A look bad. Big money can be had. So let's use our new toy, the wonderful universal do-anything tool... The DMCA. It slices, it dices, it is so versatile.
Summary: big money is involved. Therefore the DMCA can be used to do anything. What the original motivation for the law was, or the letter of the law is, is irrelevant. Is that any more clear?
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't care about your freedoms.
They don't care about your rights.
They only care about your money, and then only when it's not YOUR money anymore.
The ones with the donkey want to take away your money by legislative fiat, and the ones with an elephant want to take it away by unrestricted rampant commercialism.
You can argue as to which is a better way for them to take your money from you, but don't for a minute think that these people who rule us will allow you (or me) a voice.
Bread and circuses.
Re:Initial Musings on Commerce and Property (Score:1, Insightful)
Plus- they don't allow any RV's and junk cars to be parked in my neighbor's yards. Not a bad trade in my opinion.
Common sense vs. laws to protect ourselves (Score:2, Insightful)
Laws that remove rights to "protect us from ourselves" are often ignored because of the dictates of common sense. For example, here is a list of the laws I have broken this morning:
1. This morning I shoveled my driveway and threw some of the snow into the road.
2. I also threw some of the snow on the sidewalk.
3. I failed, however, to shovel out the area near the fire hydrant in front of my house.
4. I then proceeded to start my car and loudly rev the engine several times to warm it up a little. (Local noise ordnance forbids doing this.)
5. My car is missing one of the turn signal lenses, but I drove it anyway because it wont come in until tomorrow.
6. I exceeded the speed limit numerous times so as not to impede the flow of traffic, which is also illegal.
7. I failed to use my turn signal on a number of occasions, seeing as how it doesnt have a lens anyway.
8. I threw an apple core out the window into a large field.
9. I parked in a spot labeled "patient parking only" even though I am an employee, since every employee spot was taken.
10. I threw out a soda can because we dont have any recycle bins at work.
11. I listened to several MP3s ripped off of CDs of friends.
12. I used some windex in a manner inconsistant with its labeling.
I'm sure I've done even more "bad" things, but those probably demonstrate the most blatant disregard for the laws that I am supposed to hold so dear.
Honestly, I doubt there many persons in America, lawmakers/enforcers included, that would not be guilty of breaking some of the laws that violate common sense.
If you bought a garage door, by god its yours and you can paint it whatever color you want to. Living in fear of the consequences of using your own property, in a way that does not harm others, is a product of mass paranoia manifested in lawmakers extreme knee-jerk reactions to local upsets or other tragedies. My observation is that the larger the tragedy/upset, the more extreme the reaction.
Ahhhh, the land of the free...
Re:This is good.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am one of those people with no sense, clearly. But let me put it this way -- the "hot cofee" lawsuit was not based on any dubious laws (such as DMCA). The *judge* decided that McDonalds was negligent and has to pay. And all things being equal a judge is a guy who makes a living doing exactly that: judging. Thus regardless of how compentent he is, he is more competent than you or me.
Oh, yeah, and if you were to start a lawsuit that knifes are sharp or heights are high or that your mood is bad, it would get tossed out... don't believe me? try it.
One legitimate complaint (Score:3, Insightful)
All the patent infringement claims, and the DMCA claim look bogus to my untrained eye, but Skylink IS doing something wrong: they are not telling the customer the entire truth. IMHO, the best result would be for the courts to force Skylink to tell customers that their products disable the Rolling Code Security System in order to interoperate.