StorageTek Blocks 3rd Party Maintenance with DMCA 597
bstone writes "According to LawGeek, a district court in Boston has used the DMCA to grant a preliminary injunction against a third party service vendor who tried to fix StorageTek tape library backup systems. The court found that third party service techs who used the 'Maintenance Key' without StorageTek's permission 'circumvented' to gain access to the copyrighted code in violation of the DMCA, even though they had the explicit permission of the purchasers to fix their machines."
Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes the best way to change a law is to insist on it being enforced.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
At my county political convention, I attempted to insert a plank into the platform denouncing the DMCA (and the Mickey Mouse copyright laws). It got struck down because
Re:Exactly (Score:3)
InnerWeb
Re:Conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
How I feel this should be challenged, but IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
Eldred vs. Ashcroft dealt with the fundamental question of whether retroactive copyright extension violated the "limited times" clause in the constitution. The majority opinion stated that they did not feel that perpetual copyright was the intention of Congress, and that they saw no reason to consider this 20 year extension unconstitional. There did not seem to be any disagreement with the general idea that perpetual copyrights are unconstitutional.
The DMCA effectively mandates a perpetual copyright for all digital media with access control technologies. It does this by banning circumvention technologies. These access control technologies can then be used to further enforce EULA-like restrictions on the works even after they lapse into the public domain.
Imagine, if you will, a world where Shakespear's plays were all originally published in e-book format. Now, 350 years later, we would STILL be paying royalties to the publishing houses in order to perform the plays. And an essential aspect of our culture would be greatly diminished. Limited copyright terms exist for a reason. The DMCA made an attempted run around this concept, and so the offending portion of the law needs to be removed.
Re:How I feel this should be challenged, but IANAL (Score:3, Informative)
The DMCA is bad too, but it doesn't affect the duration of the copyright. Once a copyrighted work expires (which is never, thanks to that friggen copyrigbt extension act), you could break the encryption on that work without violating the DMCA.
Re:Conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
They already do. A cop on the street has a HUGE amount of lattitude over whether or not to arrest someone and what charges they want to file, particuarly for minor offenses.
Partly it depends on how much real work they have to do. A bored suburban cop is more likely to pedantically enforce all laws, whereas an inner city cop has to consider whether arresting someone will do more harm than good -- if they arrest someone that mea
Re:Conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of the legislature is to pass the laws. The executive branch MUST enforce them. Most people do not know that Reagan originally refused to enforse a law passed by congress and came close to being impeached. It was handled very quietly. The Executive branch does not have the ability to enforce selectively. The Judiciary is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of law. This is based on the Constitution itself and the body of cases that have been decided by the Supreme and lower courts since the founding of the nation. The Supreme Court can't throw out a "bad" law unless it violates the constitution. The only way to get rid of bad laws that are not unconstitutional is to get congress to repeal those laws. The only way that will happen is if people petition their representatives in such numbers that the representatives fear they might lose an election over it.
Here's the important point. We are responsible for the bad laws like the DMCA because we voted the jokers in who think that the checks from the RIAA are more important than our votes. They think that way because they know that most of us don't vote and of those who do, most vote the party line rather than voting based on the record of the representative. Most of our congressional representatives can take for granted that they will be automatically re-elected. We have the government we deserve.
If you want better laws, vote, call your representative, run for office yourself, get involved, educate your kids about how our system "works." Do something other than bitch.
Re:Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Sort of related... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a purchasing executive, and had just blown a large amount of money on an SL8500, I'd seriously reconsider buying from StorageTek in the future if they were going to lock me in to their own service plans with such an ability to set prices without any competition.
Remember kids, vote with your wallets and let them know it...
Actually very related ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually very related ..... (Score:5, Interesting)
that's just a way to find donald duck logic loopholes(the service codes are already kind of 'coded').
what if the firm goes under and the IP rights are sold off to some holding company that doesn't really want to provide any service to anyone and yet doesn't want to give out an inch of the 'rights' it has regarding the 'code protected' repair part? should the customers be stuffed? of course not, in the end the usage of dmca for these things will go away or dmca itself will be reconsidered(sooner or later).
Re:Actually very related ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
At the least, they're going to be left with a nasty mess with loads of different firmware versions for different legal regimes.
Re:Actually very related ..... (Score:5, Informative)
If someone told you they had to have a special 'key' to work on the car, they are on crack. In the US, there are laws preventing them from doing things like that. In the 80's it was even more restrictive, as the US was forcing import car makers to jump all kinds of hoops to insure that when people bought an import car that US service centers could repair the cars, since clearly, the import auto makers were all doomed. Also, it was a feebile attempt to steer more cash to domestic dealers.
Love your car-geek regional FUD hating cohort,
windex
Yup, I have to agree... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never needed any special tools, particularly. Especially not a funny key. Even the service light resetting tool can be "faked" with a simple piece of wire...
Re:Actually very related ..... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually very related ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Open up service shop in Canada
- Let clueless manufacturers use the DMCA to force lock-ins
- Profit
:-)
Send it to me - I'll do it (for shipping + a fee, of courseUh, EMC does it and you don't hear about it..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd, EMC has been locking people into service contracts and putting the screws to them for decades
Re:Uh, EMC does it and you don't hear about it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though; a purchasing department should (ideally, har har) consider TCO of a new piece of equipment. In a large corporation, it's a hefty factor in making a decision to go with vendor x or vendor y--"how well can this be fixed? How fast can they service this? How much will it cost me?"
Remember that for a lot of hardware, the initial acquisition cost is only a small portion of its overall lifetime cost.
Re:Uh, EMC does it and you don't hear about it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sort of related... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or was it meant to criminalize the act of breaking a system meant to keep you out when you really have no right to be there (I.E. the system isn't in your possession/control, somebody else's machine (who BTW almost certainly doesn't want you there.)
If the DMCA was really meant to keep criminals out, and it is letting people who own IP (I don't personally believe in the concept of IP, however I digress) behave in a way that ought to be criminal, wouldn't you say that the DMCA has itself been circumvented?!
This law is in contempt of itself.
It's supposed to punish criminals when they break the law, but what it really does is turn the law against regular people who are not doing anything unethical/immoral and it turns them into criminals.
I do truly believe the politicians that voted this law into existence just didn't understand the harm they were doing, I don't think they did it in bad spirit, they just didn't understand that the potential abuse of this law was greater (and it is) that the value of that which they are trying to protect.
I mean really, there are other laws that protect copyright and IP, etc, etc.
Anyway, I'm going to write a letter, I suggest you do the same.
Re:Sort of related... (Score:4, Insightful)
is that thing you paid for doesn't belong to you. It still belongs to company who license, not sell it to you. So, if you are breaking into it, you are criminal, even if you very life depends on proper functioning of the device.
Some day later we'll see a medic punished for fixing somebody's heart stimulator without manufacter permission, and thus saving man's life.
not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
so everyone loses except the manufacturer.
Re:Sort of related... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sort of related... (Score:5, Insightful)
> I do truly believe the politicians that voted this law into existence just didn't understand the harm they were doing, I don't think they did it in bad spirit, they just didn't understand that the potential abuse of this law was greater (and it is) that the value of that which they are trying to protect.
You underestimate your leaders at your peril, Citizen.
I've heard this before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sort of related... (Score:3, Insightful)
So how long... (Score:5, Insightful)
...until only the OEM will be allowed to open your box and repair / upgrade / modefy it?
I do hope this ruling is overturned. If it's left standing, it may lead to fewer and fewer computer (and other) related items that could be serviced / upgraded by everyone (and thus cheaper than if only the OEM could do so). If this is allowed to go on, how long will it be before we see the first car which only the OEM could change oil on?
Re:So how long... (Score:3, Informative)
More than a few boxes I have tried to service have been so convoluted to take apart that the only explaination is that they do not want people servicing thier own box or adding hardware.
One of the reasons that, if I am to advise on any canned hardware package, I always recommend more on the server class. Most places assume that server stuff will be user serviced, though that is becomming less common also. If you are going to go the expensive route, might as
Re:So how long... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a Dell phone monkey but my sig. other is.
Jaysyn
I agree, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I only do this because none of you will RTFA
No. (Score:5, Informative)
They bruteforced a password.
This password was not protecting access to any copyrighted works. It was not circumventing copyright access mechanisms.
No trade secrets were revealed. The controls were only bypassed.
They created a forged ID file from scratch.
This ID file was not protecting access to any copyrighted works. It was not circumventing copyright protection mechanisms.
In neither case were they bypassing or circumventing copyright protection mechanisms.
storagetek will lose just like the automobile manufacturers lost.
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, OK.
The use of the event messages generated by the maintenance code by the 3rd party maintenance vendor is thus copyright infringement.
Do you have a reference to statute or a precedent that backs that statement up?
It isn't usually the case that data generated by a copyrighted program is automatically assumed to be held under the copyright of the owners of the program. For instance, Microsoft doesn't h
Re:So how long... (Score:3, Informative)
This has been explicitly illegal in the United States, and has been for quite some time.
KFG
I thought that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't this abusing the DMCA to circumvent the anti monopoly laws.
Re:I thought that... (Score:5, Insightful)
You bought it, we own it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apply this to cars. Your mechanic would have to get permission from Nissan to so much as open the bonnet and change the oil. Come to think of it so would you. You'd also need a court order to fill up your tank, because you need access to maitenence the car.
The third party company 'circumvented' the 'protections' that StorgaTek had put in place? What quailifies as circumvention these days? Turning numbers and letter into binary digits? Simply running code that happens to do something the copyright holder dosen't like? StorageTek placed 'protections' on the code? Does compiling, and maybe obfuscating, count as protection nowadays?
Re:You bought it, we own it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You bought it, we own it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You bought it, we own it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Holding down the "shift" key.
Sad, isn't it?
Cheers
Stor
Re:You bought it, we own it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. But if you reverse-engineer the specs, you can open up a BMW-servicing shop. Under the DMCA, if they encode any bit of the info, you could be sued. That's the issue here: Not that the company has to help you figure out what to do; it's that you're not allowed to discover it on your own.
Well who didn't see that one coming. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice.
The death kneel (Score:5, Insightful)
Hit um where it hurts!
Lose your data to DMCA ? (Score:5, Insightful)
- owner's rights ?
- rights to recover you own data ?
- create interoperability when needed ?
This law is certainly well thought out.
Very well balanced:
Producer has all rights and consumer has none.
- and in exchange for that -
Consumer has no rights and producer has all.
Re:Lose your data to DMCA ? (Score:5, Interesting)
- owner's rights ?
All of your rights under coptright law are revoked. You do however get the right to do whatever the copyright holder has generously "authorized" you to do.
- rights to recover you own data ?
None. If the disk gets scratched then go buy another copy. Remember, it's "good for the economy" every time you spend money.
- create interoperability when needed ?
Well, actually there is an interoperability clause! However it only permits you to descramble software, and only under very restricted circumstances. You still go to prison for descrambling anything else, like the movie or song you bought.
Very well balanced:
Producer has all rights and consumer has none.
- and in exchange for that -
Consumer has no rights and producer has all.
Well yeah, the DMCA (and pretty much every other copyright law in the last 30 years) was literally been written by laywers employed by the publishing lobby.
And that's hardly the only lopsided portion of the DMCA. For example there's the "expedited subpeona process". The DMCA essentially gives copyright holders the power to issue themselves subpeonas without judicial review, with absolutely no penalty for bogus subpeoneas. (The "under penalty of perjury" clause only applies to the claim that you are a copyright holder on something, not that he is the copyright holder of the subject of the subpeona or the allegation of infringement.) Yep, copyright holders get special "expedited subpeona" powers while actual police officers have to go through the normal subpeona process and go before a real judge while investigating rapes and murders. Copyright holders are special that way. They need powers that even the police don't have because, well, having to get a real subpeona would be, like, annoying or something. They're special that way, they get to right the laws.
Oh, and then there's the lovely notice-and-takedown process. Again, no need to go before a judge or anything, just mail off a note. The process essentially mandates that anything get immediately yanked off of the internet based on nothing more than a private demand letter.
I'm sure I've missed some other fair and balanced portions of the DMCA. If anyone thinks of anything I missed, go ahead and add it in a reply.
-
Re:Abuse the DMCA to destroy the system (Score:3, Insightful)
If he DOES have that kind of money, he's not Joe Average.
Re:Abuse the DMCA to destroy the system (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm blue sky handwaving here, but I wonder if a sufficiently evil legal genious could show that any attempt to amend a law was in some way inimicable to the DMCA.
Hmmmm. Probably not, but it's an intriguing thought.
Re:Lose your data to DMCA ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this was somewhat tongue in cheek; but while not paying your taxes is not an option for most sane people there were some interesting ideas around in the 80s during the prime of the German peace movement to do civil protest by tax payments: Do pay your taxes, but either pay a miniscule amount too low (e.g. 1 USD too low) or even better, a little too much (so they own you and have nothing to hold against you). As at least here in Germany the state has to be very accurate in the payments it gets or receives (ever got one of those "Here is your great tax return of 0,03 EUR"-letters ?) you generate a huge amount of administrative overhead as the state has to remind or repay you for miniscule amounts. If enough people to this one can bring huge bureaucracies to a screeching halt.
Re:Lose your data to DMCA ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lose your data to DMCA ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I plead guilty to posting under influence of not enough sleep and too much coffee, you honour
So whatever you do, you always generate that overhead. Which would probably mean that it's considered normal and is already budgeted.
Yes and no. They certainly plan for some overhead. On the other hand they will only plan for a certain percentage of invalid transactions, if you manage to get over this rate considerably it should cause some trouble. Also t
curiousor and curiousor (Score:5, Insightful)
We, up here in the true north, tend to see the American governing bodies as just too damn big and requiring lobbists just to get a prefunctory hearing.
Perhaps one of the more telling differences between Canadian and American systems is the much more proactive stance of the judiciary in the American system. Presently there is some debate in Canada as to how proactive we want our judiciary. I see the American judiciary as being empowered and expected to mititgate against such Catch 22 situations as the one the story outlines. Perhaps it would make an interesting Poll to ask
Hostages (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading between the lines, it also seems to imply that vendors would in the future have a free card to hold their customers hostage. Imagine if a company built in code to cause a range of various complaints. It would be breaking the DMCA to reverse engineer their code and pinpoint that the problems were built in. At the same time, the company would be able to turn a nice profit on charging for "maintenance" contracts to "fix" the "bugs".
Of course, if there were too many such problems it would damage the reputation of their products. But if there were few enough, it could provide just enough extra "free revenue" to provide a useful extra profit source.
Fun stuff huh?
Re:Hostages (Score:3, Funny)
scared of the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:scared of the future [orwellian] (Score:5, Insightful)
Perpetual state of war, government controlling the flow of the "free press," re-writing the language (e.g. patriot act), government can review your reading habits without a warrant, there are cameras at every major intersection, cameras located on every isle of meijer, government can listen to your phone conversations with little oversight,,, Did you know you need a permit to protest in public?
At what point do you step back and say... OK, now is it orwellian?
Re:scared of the future [orwellian] (Score:5, Insightful)
I still can't get over how phrases like "Free Speech Zone" and "The Homeland" have entered the language with such little fanfare. Anyone refering to the protection of The Homeland and wearing a little lapel flag 24/7 would have been looked at a little funny in Ye Olden Dayes.
Re:scared of the future [orwellian] (Score:5, Insightful)
Which of these is true:
- Your population is underinformed, living in fear and being exploited by corporations
- Everything is hunky-dory, just these troublesome terrorists to deal with (but not the causes, obviously) and they only hate us because we're free or something.
Really, something is wrong with America. The diminishing of personal "liberties" (why didn't you say rights?) you're happy to tolerate is just one symptom, and without treatment of the causal disease (and I'm not pretending to know what it is) there's only one inevitability; the death of America. At best, I think you're looking at civil war within 30 years. Insane? Maybe, but did you argue when Reagan funded the Mujaheddin?explicit permission: Simpsons quote (Score:4, Funny)
Homer: "Is that so? Oh Flanders! Won't you join me in my kitchen? Heh heh heh heh."
Wiggum: "Uh...doesn't work if you invite them."
Flanders: "Hidily hey!"
Homer: "Go home."
Flanders: "Toodley-doo!"
Wrong title (Score:3, Funny)
Is the Law an ass? (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think, when geeks said the courts couldn't effectively decide technology cases, that the geeks were underestimating the courts.
But this, plus the recent ruling that the Wiretap Act does not apply to email because email isn't just transmitted=, it's stored on servers, makes me think that perhaps the courts have finally found an aspect of society to which they just can't seem to effectively apply the law.
Which is worrisome in a number of ways. Perhaps we needs special courts, like the tax courts, for technology issues? Or do we need entire new laws that aren't rooted in traditional property laws?
A year ago I'd have said that traditional property laws could cover technology, but events -- and the courts --seem intent on proving me wrong.
Re:Is the Law an ass? (Score:4, Insightful)
We hear a lot about this case on slashdot, appropriately given its dire implications. But you're being unfair. In a properly functioning system, judges don't make the law; they interpret it. The wiretap law targets intercepted transmissions. Email sitting on a server isn't being transmitted.
A bizarre loophole? Yes. Clearly outside the general conception of surveilliance? Sure. But a bad ruling? No. The ruling is correct -- the law is broken. And judges don't make law.
The people who dropped the ball -- as has so often been the case in high tech -- are the people's representatives. You want your email to be safe? Get Congress to pass an updated "wiretap" law.
Imagine the alternative... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Threaten to void the warranty, making your customers angry.
2. Consider it part of doing business, and raise prices since your profits used to be based mostly on product repairs. Again, makes customers angry.
3. Lock your product with proprietary technology and sue all those who would tamper with it. The average customer won't find out, and you most current customers will never hear of it.
Personally I would have tried Torx screws. Noooobody has torx screwdrivers.
Re:Imagine the alternative... (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently those are what i call 'star head' screws: Site with a few pics of torx screws, thanks to google [lara.com]
A real pro would use those screws that have two ramps on the head, so you can tighten them easy, but if you try to loosen them the bit just slides up the ramp in circles.
Certificated service only, of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Not yesterday's trend in USA, where it is more important to have sw/hw/... company controlled "certificates" than university diploma. Only it is sanctioned by law now, not only customer's will to work with you regardless of certificate set you keep on wall behind you.
I remember being at the top of this slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)
The DMCA is obviously a scourge to the freedom of information. When it was first introduced--and abused--I thought to myself "Excellent, now the absurdity and obvious problems with this law can finally be addressed, how can any rationally minded lawmaker not noticed these issues?"
Ha.
Now I realize that logic like that ranks right up there with "If it wasn't totally true, they wouldn't put it on the news..." and "The FCC can't do that....cmon, like people would let them get away with that !
Ha.
I don't know what or how, but, critical mass is obviously upon us...some day (in my lifetime anyway) I expect to see the recoil of all of these actions. What this means is a mystery to me....but, things like this can't go much farther untill the proverbial Joe Q. Sixpacks of the world become personally and financially affected...but, then again, by then....I'm sure "their" plan will be in full swing and such rogue thinkers will be dealt with appropriately.
Sickening....truely. Someone show me a glimmer of hope...please.
How did this happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it went like this:
StorageTech execs: We were going to commit suicide this month, but we decided on an alternative method of self-destruction. We'll sue to prevent someone from testing our product to make sure it works.
And then we'll get our trademark on Slashdot! We'll be the leader in company deathcycle management.
It's important to realize that the DMCA is not the only corrupt aspect of the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [futurepower.org].
How does a court that does not understand technical things interpret a law that was written by people who didn't understand technical things? This way:
"... contrary to their assertions, defendants are not saved by 17 U.S.C. 117.3 That section was passed in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect computer technicians who risked violating copyright law just by turning on the machines they were to service. Thus, the statute provides that it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if the program is copied solely by turning on the machine for the purpose only of maintenance and repair and 1) the copy "is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance and repair is completed," and 2) any part of the computer program that is not necessary for the machine to be activated is not accessed or used. 17 U.S.C. 117(c). Defendants copy the Code by turning on the machine; however, they do so not just for repair, but also for the express purpose of circumventing plaintiff's security measures, modifying the Maintenance Level, and intercepting plaintiff's Event Messages."
"The evidence further shows that plaintiff requires its employees to sign confidentiality agreements and that it denies its customers any rights to the Maintenance Code and Event Messages."
Earlier in the injunction, the court said, "Plaintiff's storage systems are, at their most basic, a large number of tape libraries that plaintiff collectively calls Silo Systems. They have three components: 1) a Library Storage Module, 2) a Library Control Unit, and 3) a Library Management Unit. The first is a very large box-like structure (14' x14' x 8') and a piece of hardware with robotics that is operated by software in the Control and Management units. It typically contains thousands of tapes, tape drives and a robotic arm to store and retrieve tapes as directed."
The court says that it is entirely acceptable that you can buy the room-size hardware from StorageTek, but you can't test it to see if it works: "Plaintiff [StorageTek] also services the customers' installations by means of diagnostic software, the "Maintenance Code," which it uses to identify malfunctions and problems in the customers' storage system. Although the storage systems are programmed with the Maintenance Code along with the functional operations software, the Code is not sold, and only plaintiff has access to it."
It seems to me only fair that StorageTek be required to give the injunction to all prospective customers, so that customers can see the circumstances in which they would be backing up their important data.
In my opinion, a customer would be crazy to trust their data to a company that may go out of business at any time because of incredibly bad management decisions, and amazingly adversarial business practices.
A scene like this will be repeated wherever StorageTek systems are sold: Computer tech: "Oh, you say we're getting a StorageTek system? I'll just put a copy of the injunction on the CEO's desk, with a note saying that we may be sued if we test the system."
Locksmith? (Score:5, Insightful)
And to summarize your rights as a consumer (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously though, why does it feel like more and more companies are moving to the "drug dealer" business model? You buy product $foo, oh you'll also need product $bar, and since it has proprietary connections, you'll need add-on $foobar, and repairs can only be done by certified $foobarmen. And no, you may not use third-party anything, and you're sinking deeper and deeper into the quicksand.
Selling stuff, as in money for goods, seems to be out. Everything is supposed to be licenced, and with a list of strings attached longer than my arm. Usually convieniently "agreed to" by opening the box or clicking "yes", long after the purchase. The first, in a long string of catches.
Oh yes, and of course you have the right to read the EULA up front. Just file a request with the Central Bureaucracy (if you don't get it watch more Futurama, ep. 2x11). Not to mention, who'd spend more money on a lawyer that could understand the licence terms than the product is worth?
Why does it happen? Because consumer choice doesn't work. All but a few idealists boycott because they believe something will change within a reasonable timeframe. But these companies don't need you as a customer today, next month or next year. If nothing else because they have so many other suckers hooked. You need them and their products more than they need you. Did I mention this is the "drug dealer" business model?
Kjella
Other vendors with the same bad attitude... (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a link to that story. [buythebestbuy.com] And not only did Lexmark sue, it actually won a preliminary injunction against the manufacturer. Looks like history is repeating itself...
Replace "copyright" with "distributionright" (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that the right answer is to replace "copyright" with "distributionright". Make as many copies of anything as you like for yourself. Control shouldn't be on "copying" but on "distributing". The rules would have to be tweaked appropriately to handle companies but I think that this would be a much more sensible concept.
Re:Replace "copyright" with "distributionright" (Score:3, Interesting)
Levis is apparently an upmarket designer clothing label, using only the finest far-eastern factories, and would not want to be sold from non-authorised distributers.
Your idea would be even worse for cars, since you would prohibit all second-hand car sales since they do not give enough money back to the car manufacturer and
Re:Replace "copyright" with "distributionright" (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright doesn't apply to cars (except for the "intellectual property" inside of them) and I don't see why "distributionright" would either. I would see "di
Re:Replace "copyright" with "distributionright" (Score:3, Interesting)
Just step in where things get commercial. Do not, however, invade peoples privacy, constrain the freedom of information and our right to access information because of the greed of some big companies. Sadly, the world is different.
Nowadays, the privacy of a person is much less important than the right for companies to make a profit off everything.
Am I one of the few ones here who thinks that draconic, consumer (citizen!)-restricting copyright laws are much more invading than e.g. t
Greed. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can see where all this is going, this me-first grubby-fisted lusting after dollars, this coveting of "trade secrets" and "intellectual property". As this practice proliferates, and as technological devices become more and more commonplace, consumers will be faced with a double-headed devil dog of a choice over every product they buy. Either buy into a proprietary "service plan" or throw the product away as soon as it breaks.
Say goodbye to the entrepenurial repair business, say hello to a world of locked-down trade secrets, where ideas are golden geese to be guarded and coveted, and most of humanity languishes in thrall to the companies with the most ruthless legal departments.
Does it have to be this way? No. We have it in ourselves to say no to this nightmarish future. Open source is one start, the idea of knowledge as a common good, to be shared not just because superior products result from open standards, but because freedom is a basic human need, like food or air.
The real goal, however, is to resist the greed that is the source of all this stifling legal red tape, and that comes down to each and every one of us. It starts with little things, like downloading Firefox [mozilla.org], or giving a dollar to a panhandler. The future doesn't have to suck.
Re: Greed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The goal of every capitalist is to dominate the market. The lesson here is that our laws and court system are so incredibly broken to allow trivial monopolies to occur without some sort of corresponding public good to outweigh the inefficiencies that come with monopolies. Patents and copyrights are monopolies. That they can be handed out like candy, and retained almost indefinitely (in the case of copyrights), or for obvious or pre-existing inventions, clearly undermines any possible public benefit to granting such a monopoly.
The real tragedy is that YOUR money (in the form of tax dollars) will inevitably go toward enforcing such monopolies under the current law, in the form of court time, paperwork, and legal actions (both civil and criminal if certain lawmakers have their way). Yes, you got that right - you're paying money so that the government can sue you on behalf of monopolists who are ripping you off (in most cases.) That you've already paid for your congresscritters to pass such stupid legislation, and will eventually pay again for the court time and challenges required to overturn such legislation should also be factored into the equation.
Copyrights and patents were meant to reward sharing material and ideas reduced to practice with the public, by protecting your ability to profit from that information even after making the info public. In many cases, I'd argue copyrights really don't apply because there are so many restrictions (ie, copy protection in the form of DRM, shrinkwrap agreements, etc), you're really dealing with something more akin to trade secrets rather than copyright. In the same vein, the companies aren't really sharing the information with the public in exchange for monopoly protection. For example, a publisher issues a DVD which degrades in 5 years, but forbids anyone from making any copies, which means that 20 years down the line, there are no readable copies left. Sounds crazy? Many old films fall into this sort of trap - the only surviving copies exist because somebody violated the "law" by hanging onto something they weren't supposed to, or by making a bootleg duplicate. The irony? Studios doing restorations of films to release onto DVD have relied on such copies (because they didn't take care of their own masters), which have surfaced from time to time, from certain "private" collections.
Theoretically it is supposed to be that every copyrighted work is filed with the Library of Congress, but since they're not getting enough money to store, cateogorize, and preserve such materials, they've long since dropped that requirement. So much for preserving creative works until such time that they lapse into the public domain...
Whatever became of the Lexmark case? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can't compete, legislate your competition away.
Here comes that TCO stuff again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Magnusson-Moss act? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
A few points from a StorageTek user (Score:5, Informative)
There are a couple of points here that people don't seem to realise:
1) If you tamper with a StorageTek library you can enable unlicensed slots (cells) and enable it to store more tapes than you have paid for. StorageTek are very good in that they allow you to expand your library as you require, rather than making you get a new fully expanded one because you may need the storage space in the future.
2) StorageTek rely upon support contracts to make their libraries profitable. If they allow other companies to support their hardware they will have to charge more for the hardware in the first place.
3) These bits of kit are seriously advanced robotics, there are a lot of trade secrets etc that STK don't really want people to be examining.
Re:A few points from a StorageTek user (Score:5, Insightful)
Except:
1) They sold you the device. What right do thay have to prevent you from modifying your own property to take advantage of capabilities they built into it then proceeded to disable? This is like Intel suing someone for overclocking a processor!
2) Good for StorageTek. If they want to cut their margins in anticipation of future business, that's their problem.
3) If they don't want people to be examining it, they should lock it away in a secure room. Trade secrets have no legal protection as long as they're not leaked in violation of contract - so if I get a StorageTek device and reverse-engineer the trade secrets out... They can't do anything. If they want legal protection and truly have an innovative invention, they can do what everyone else does: patent it.
Re:A few points from a StorageTek user (Score:3, Insightful)
Err.. no.
Business trade off (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Loss leaders aren't the only business model.
3) Trade secrets, keep them secret then, where is the NDA?
Re:A few points from a StorageTek user (Score:3, Insightful)
Then that is a fundamental flaw in the way these products are designed. Now, if the machine was delivered with only the slots ordered but room for more (which could be added a
some "ram"ifications (Score:4, Interesting)
MS (had to do it) makes it illegal for anyone without at least a MS cert of some kind to "fix" their software, for instance. Apply that-along with this ruling- to any other propietary closed source licensed software or software/hardware combination out there, which this storage tek deal is. That could mean any official vendors computer or computerish gadget in general terms. Not make it just a hassle, or "void your warranty", just make the attempt to do so *illegal*. How many whitebox shops could get sued now by the big vendors if they chose to do so?
Automotive manufactuerers finally can make it really legal to make it illegal for third party garages to "fix" your car. note:there's a story running on Drudge now over police trials of the new "car zapper" which will let them send a blast of EM aimed at your car to halt it, by screwing up the electronics. The companies (and government) might make hardening attempts against that illegal -means you can't "fix" your car and a mechanic can't/won't take a chance on it- either
Apply the idea to other sorts of appliances and gadgets, most of them are computer controlled now, and they can make them blackbox-you can't open them up at all without violating circumvention and permission. Washers/dryers/stoves, small engines, televisions, all that stuff. The basic main idea of the ruling (it's just an injunction at this point of course) is they-they being any random company with a software/hardware combined product- can state the terms in whatever detail they want, and even if you own the product you have to still follow the terms. It's like applying a copyright license that overrules any normal fair use provisions of normal hardware ownership, if it's a combination product.
I know this is in conflict with other laws, but lately, where are the "wins"? I don't see too many. It seems like it's lose access and rights 99 to 1 lately.
precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, if all that is required for locking people into buying service from you is adding some brain dead authentication scheme, thats just lame.
I think StorageTek will loose.
Simple solution.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Vendor: Okay, bring it in...
A few hours pass.
Vendor: Um, we've got kind of a problem here...
Client: What is it?
Vendor: Well, it turns out that the DMCA prohibits us from accessing or repairing your hardware.
Client: So, what exactly does that mean?
Vendor: Well, per contract, you agreed that submitting a DMCA-protected device for service would render the full value of the contract due immediately. This is a DMCA-protected device, so your full 5-year service contract will be due before we return the device.
Client: Okay, but is it usuable? I mean, can we get our data back.
Vendor: Unfortunately, no. It would be illegal.
Client: So you're screwing us, right?
Vendor: No, you screwed us. You bought hardware that was illegal for us to service. We can't do anything for you without breaking the law.
Client: What do you mean, illegal?! It's our data.
Vendor: Um, yes, it is your data. But you don't own the software which controls access to it - Storage-Tek does. And since this software is restricted by the DMCA, you can't legally access your data without Storage-Tek's permission. Your only option at this point is to return the device to them.
Client: So let me get this straight: You're going to charge us a full five year contract, and you don't even fix the machine?! How can you keep clients like this?
Vendor: Truth is, we can't. That's why you agreed in the contract not to send us DMCA-restricted devices. Since we cannot legally service DMCA restricted hardware, we can't restore your data. And this is why you agreed in the contract to pay off the full value of the contract if you did so - as compensation for the fact that we can no longer do business with you.
Client: So what happens if Storage-Tek goes out of business? What would you do then?
Vendor: It's not what we would do, it is what you would do. You'd probably go out of business because no one would legally be able to service your Storage-Tek machines. The next time they failed, you would irretrievably lose all of your data.
Client: So, how could we avoid this in the future?
Vendor: Simple - buy a machine that isn't DMCA-restricted.
Client: But we obviously didn't know this when we bought these machines...
Vendor: Well, it's not my problem you want to break the law....
Re:Nvidia, ATI (mostly) just as bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nvidia, ATI (mostly) just as bad (Score:3, Informative)
I understand the difference between purchasing a product and purchasing the use of a pr
Re:91/EC/250 specifically forbids this (Score:4, Interesting)
In the swedish implementation (or the draft that was arround some time ago, have not seen the final propsal), this was specifically mentioned and discussed, and also cases were some protection was both copyright related (copying) and non copyright related (like access). It was deemed that circumvention in those cases was STILL ok as it would otherwise put to much power into the hands of copuright owenr. They have the option to put in measures that relate to copyright (and have protection) or measures that that relate to other things as well (and not get protection). A quite interesting reasoning in my opinion.
Re:Badnarik 20004!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Is preferential voting, as practised in Australia, such a hard concept? It works like this: Say you have 2 major parties (A, B), and 2 minor ones (C, D) on the ballot. You like C, but are pretty sure they won't win. Of A and B you prefer A. In the US, you have to just vote A if you want your vote to count. In Australia you can vote "C,A,D,B". When counted, only the first preferences (above: C) are looked at to begin
Re:Badnarik 20004!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard all kinds of "it's too complicated" objections to this. But I convinced our pastor to run our parish council elections according to this method, and it was a breeze to explain it to everyone, AND the results reflected the goal - the candidate that was most acceptable to the most people won.
As someone who has voted for "third parties" in every presidential election since 1988, I would welcome a system like this.
Re:Kapitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wierd law coming out of the US again. (Score:3, Insightful)