Hack an Oscilloscope, Get a DMCA Take-Down Notice From Tektronix 273
An anonymous reader writes with the news that Hackaday published an article on the poor security of the add-on modules that Tektronix sells as expensive add-ons to unlock features in certain of its oscilloscopes. The reader writes: "It has come to attention of Tek's legal eagles and they now want the article to be taken down. Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page?"
A comment from the linked site: (Score:4, Insightful)
The car analogy:
"Owen says:
July 28, 2014 at 8:09 am
If you download the trial version of a piece of software you might also have to pay $500 to “de-cripple” features that are already present in the version you’ve got.
If you download a crack for it to unlock those features because the company didn’t make it difficult enough for people to get around their protection, that still doesn’t make it right.
I imagine Tektronix just rely on the fact that a lot of people that buy their expensive kit will be businesses and businesses generally have to do things by the book, so they won’t bother unlocking things they haven’t paid for, in the same way Adobe relies on business users to buy Photoshop and mostly overlooks all the home users not paying for it."
Re:A comment from the linked site: (Score:5, Interesting)
Woops, This is what I meant to post:
"MRE says:
July 28, 2014 at 10:41 am
I think it is more like this:
You buy a new car, and to save money, you opt for the ‘no thrills’ package. No radio. No electric windows. No heated seats.
Upon receiving the car, you discover that the manufacturer did in fact install the radio. Did in fact install the electric windows. And did install the seat heaters.
However, none of them work. Upon further investigation you discover that to have the items enabled, you must pay the difference in price. But, you poke around and discover that in the fuse box (which required a special screw driver to open), three slots are empty: Radio, Windows, Seats.
You pop fuses into each slot and everything comes alive.
Was this theft, or did the factory simply give you the stuff at no cost, and hope you would pay them more money when you decided you wanted the options enabled after all?"
Re:A comment from the linked site: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The G37 Sport package includes paddle shifters on the steering column. If you wanted them on a non-sport version though, there was an ebay seller who sold the paddles. All of the wiring and functionality was already there, just bolt on the paddles plug them in and you were done.
Don't be so sure - if I want to add steering wheel audio controls to my truck, I have to take it to the dealership* to get it programmed (in addition to adding the proper parts), despite the fact that "all the wiring and functionality [is] already there".
* Or spend a few grand on a Tech II and GM software subscription.
Re: (Score:3)
An older example: Back in the day, IBM sold two card punch/readers, IIRC the 620 and 630. One was much faster and more expensive than the other. According to what I was told back then, the difference was that the slower cheaper one had an extra circuit board that slowed it down. Remove the extra, and voila! faster - plus loss of warranty, no field service, etc. of course.
It's quite common on most cars to have a single wiring harness that includes all the plugs for the extra features, possibly for all mo
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?
Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you, as an individual could enable all fo those things. Same for the oscilloscope. You cannot, however, post online how to do it--at least not according to Tektronics.
So, what Tektronics is saying is that the dissemination of knowledge is a crime?
Do I even have to point out how slippery that slope is?
I agree it is a slippery slope, however, technically, they are correct in that the information being disseminated is from their copyrighted manuals. Posting their copyrighted information has led to the takedown notice. I'm curious, though, if the process could be posted without referencing their specific content - such as "look up the serial number for the feature you want to enable and enter it on such and such screen," instead of "Enter xyz1234 to enable this feature." Technically, if you aren't reprodu
Re:A comment from the linked site: (Score:4, Insightful)
I read the original article (thanks to the WayBack Machine), and unless the "copyrighted manual" tells you how to program an EEPROM with an SKU, then I don't see how it's a violation of DMCA.
Boy, wouldn't that be a kick in the face? For corporations to be able to limit access to knowledge by writing it in a book and copyrighting said tome? Sounds like the premise for a dystopian novel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
copyright doesn't protect facts, protects paragrap (Score:2)
Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.
If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright doesn't give them control over a fact. "The SKU for feature X isyyyyyyyy" is a fact, and therefore not protectable. If hackaday had copied and pasted paragraphs of prose from the manual, that would have been copyright infringement because copyright protects a unique expression.
If the manual had a table of SKU numbers and the article had a list, there's no copyright infringement because it's a different, unique expression.
IANAL, but based on what I have read elsewhere, I believe you are incorrect.
A couple citations for you. Phone book not (c) (Score:3)
> IANAL
If you were a lawyer, you might start by reading the law (statute). ... ... extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery
102 . Subject matter of copyright: In general
b) In no case does copyright protection
from http://www.copyright.gov/title... [copyright.gov]
Also 499 U.S. 340, 345 "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates."
If the wording of the statutes are unclear, you would look at how the court has interpreted it. Fei
Re:A comment from the linked site: (Score:4, Insightful)
If they had posted, verbatim, Tektronics documents showing how to do this hack.... that would be a copyright abuse. If I write up some notes on how to hack their scope, that document is MINE, and it is protected by copyright the moment I wrote it.
I get that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent the protections on a copyrighted work.... How is an oscilloscope a protected work?
Do I get to slap a DMCA notice on a burglar to my house?
Re: (Score:2)
Car? First sale doctrine. It's yours.
Software? It's not yours, you (most likely) agreed to a license to use it, which may include a fee per feature.
Are click through licenses, after purchase / install valid? Debatable, and untested in the court room.
Another example Re:A comment from the linked site: (Score:4, Interesting)
cars with an oil change light that needs a code to (Score:2)
cars with an oil change light that needs a code to reset and they intend for that code to only be told to the dealers? and it's some thing that is really easy to do?
Can they sue jiffy lube and others who do there own oil change from resetting the light under the DMCA?
Hack-a-day cowed to Tektronics, unfortunately ! (Score:4, Interesting)
Since this is an abuse of the DMCA law Hack-a-day could have told Tektronics to go fuck themselves, but no ...
After receiving that DMCA notice Hack-a-day quickly changed the wording of the original article (without the permission of the original author, of course)
Re:Hack-a-day cowed to Tektronics, unfortunately ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And I don't think you'll ever see something like that on Slashdot, because HEY I'M AN ORANGE, ALL IS WELL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
wayback machine (Score:5, Informative)
the article is safely stored in the wayback machine, and i have made a backup away from the reaches of the stupid DMCA.
yet another project ripe for the application of the streisand effect
Wayback Machine (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wayback Machine (Score:5, Funny)
So it turns out that the "module" is just an EEPROM which contains the module's own product SKU. Which is information that Tektronix provides in their own catalogue. Genius. Nobody will never crack that code.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law seems more applicable.
You can't copyright non-creative information like data. The SKU is used as a key to enable the option already stored in the firmware. That is why they are invoking the DMCA.
Tek smeck (Score:5, Informative)
Have never like tek scopes that much, or Agilent. In fact my fav. Scopes are Yokogawa DLM series.
All the manufacturers do the cripple thing though. If you want free I2C or LIN or CAN or USB or UART, buy a PC scope like a CleverScope.
Re:Tek smeck (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness (and as a former Agilent employee), you would not believe the amount of work that goes into those things that you don't get with cheap PC-based scopes and low-end stand-along scopes. They do a LOT of work making sure that the front end (analog stuff between BNC and A/D converters) is correct. Also, lots of DSP-ish type stuff right after the A/D too. I am a digital designer, and I worked on some of the oscilloscope chips, and I don't even understand a lot of that of that stuff.
For a hobbyist working with bandwidth-limited signals, and everything is 5V or less, the cheaper brands are probably fine. However, how do you tell if your scope is lying to you? Do you know aliasing when you see it? I have seen some PC-based scopes do the voltage offset (where you twist the little knob to move the waveform up and down) all in software, and seen the clipping in the A/D -- nasty stuff. You really need do to that in the analog front end You also have how many waveforms per second that you can display. If you have a glitch that happens only rarely, if you are capturing only 30 or 100 waveforms per seconds, you might not see the glitch. On the other hand, if your scope is capturing 50,000 waveform/second, you stand a MUCH greater chance of seeing it.
I do admit that scopes are a pricey purchase, and part of that is due to the low volumes involved and the high amount of R&D. But, if you need something that you can trust (you make your living off design work and are not just a hobbyist), you really need to get something professional from a reputable company.
Re:Tek smeck (Score:4, Insightful)
You could say that offering all options at a discount costs them nothing. You could also argue that it does deprive them of revenues. There are arguments both ways.
It is sort of like Windows 7 home vs Windows 7 pro vs. WIndows Server. They all pretty much share the same code base (maybe less so for the Server version). The only difference is a switch or two.
If you argue that turning on the FFT and serial protocols costs them nothing, you are right! Once the scope is in your hands, it costs Agilent and Tek next to nothing to enable that feature. For Agilent, it is an unlock code. For Tek, it is a module that costs them only a buck or two to make.
On the other hand, it actually DID cost something to include those features. A lot of serial decode stuff is done hardware and software. The software costs a lot of money to develop and test. The hardware part adds some cost to every single unit sold, plus the cost to develop that test that. So, imagine that all of these extra features (FFT, serial decode, etc.) were included standard with every scope. This means that the price would have to be raised to cover all of the NRE costs. So, the price of the scope rises for everybody. For those that need the extra features, they are getting a great bargain. For everybody else, they are paying more for something that they don't need.
So, by locking features that need to be unlocked, you piss off the people who feel like the features are already there, and they are being artificially prevented from doing something that they ought to be able to do. If you unlock everything, you raise the price for the very budget-conscious customers. There is no perfect answer.
Hey Tektronic (Score:2)
oh, dear you're being assholes about releasing broken software - maybe I won't then.
WebArchive (Score:5, Informative)
The Google cache was taken down. The original author seems to have agreed to take down the information on his site as well, even without having been contacted him-self:
https://sites.google.com/site/... [google.com]
However, they were too late. The web archive has already archived their pages. Here are the relevant links:
http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
(not modified)
https://oshpark.com/profiles/m... [oshpark.com]
http://web.archive.org/web/201... [archive.org]
DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the letter published qualifies as a DMCA takedown request, as it doesn't actually mention any part of the DMCA or any other copyright act that has been broken. I'm not sure that a short keyphrase constitutes copyright-protected matter, for one thing. And it's not like publishing the information violates the noncircumvention part of the Act, because they aren't circumventing an anticopying mechanism. They're circumventing a different mechanism entirely I suspect they're just trying their luck.
Re: (Score:3)
A mechanism doesn't need to prevent copying in order to qualify for DMCA's anticircumvention protections; it only needs to control access to a work. That's why you specifically need an exception for phones, among other things, even if phone unlocking does not let you copy the phone or its software.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Law]".
You would be right that this does not qualify as a DMCA takedown request. In this
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, this is a straight up duplication of the factory hardware which enables entitlements. It's not getting around the protections, it's opening them in exactly the way they were designed to be opened.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the access is gained by the same way or a different way from how a copyright owner would do it is not material to the law; the authorization of the copyright owner is the defining criterion. The law defines circumvention thus:
to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner'
For example, most non-authorized decryp
Re: (Score:2)
Is blocking functionality controlling access to a work, though? Can an oscilloscope's behaviour even qualify as a work under copyright law?
Re: (Score:2)
I can see your argument, although I still think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that circumventing the key grants you access to the work. The code's still inaccessible.
This is Danaher Corp (Score:5, Informative)
Tektronix is now owned by DANAHER corp. It is the same corp that bought Fluke and declared that nobody else can produce yellow DVMâ(TM)s. Remember the DVMs Sparkfun was importing but were seized at the border? Same company.
They gobble up good brands, and it seems the production is often sent overseas. Some folks say the quality of those great Amercian brands then suffers. Do a search and you'll see a long list of companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just go here [wikipedia.org] instead of searching (not that it took much to find it.)
Of the list of companies, I only recognized Amprobe, Fluke, Textronix, and Matco. But I don't really work in most of those industries where the other companies are better known.
Re: (Score:3)
You probably think Apple patented "rounded corners" too and think Apple owns the entire market.
The yellow-jacketed-DMMs are a Fluke TRADEMARK. They are a design that Fluke uses to make their designs distinct so people can recognize it as a Fluke.
Sparkfun imported crappy (unsafe) DMMs
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the lawsuit is something new, but Tek has been using software-unlockable features since the 80s as far as I'm aware.
It doesn't make sense for them to have 14 different front-end designs and software designs to allow for different feature sets. On the other hand, the cost to develop the high-end features is higher than developing a cheap scope, so they don't want to just give that stuff away for free. From what I understand there is some really good design in the high-end gear.
So, if you want compani
That is surely going to work (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just looked at product page - this is mixed signal 200MHz scope. They don't even put price on it, you have to request a quote.
From some googling it looks like a few grands worth of scope so not totally out of the reach of hobbyists.
not to void warranty of their instruments.
From tek's POV the nasty thing about this hack is that it's quite hard to prove someone used it. AIUI the whole point of using modules (rather than serial number tied unlock codes) is to let you move options between scopes. So even if the scope records what modules have been used in it how do you tell the difference between someone using a cloned module and someone using a borrowed module.
This is why we can't have nice things (Score:2, Interesting)
An anonymous reader writes with the news that Hackaday published an article on the poor security of the add-on modules that Tektronix sells as expensive add-ons to unlock features in certain of its oscilloscopes.
The add-on modules are expensive because you pay for the features they unlock, not for the components of the unlock device itself. It's a dongle.
This guy is essentially trying to cheat. It's like you could unlock some cool DLC content for a game, but instead just went cracking the encrypted data files and getting that content without paying the game company.
Hey, if you don't like a scope which has this kind of feature unlock capability, just don't buy it. But stop messing with other people's legitimate busi
Re:This is why we can't have nice things (Score:5, Informative)
A poor analogy. You would have to actually download the DLC files first, in almost all cases.
And he's not cracking encrypted data files, he's putting in a cheat code, which happens to be the name of the DLC, because the company are morons.
Re: (Score:2)
No actually most DLC files are already on the disk. The only thing you download is a small file containing the key to enable the DLC.
Re: (Score:2)
I forget, what does the D in DLC stand for?
Re: (Score:2)
"Downloadable", that doesn't make it true though just because it is in the name. Just like DRM doesn't actually give you any "Digital Rights" or "Microsoft PlaysForSure" doesn't actually plays for sure or "Disney FastPlay" isn't actually fast play.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the instances where some DLC resources were on the disk (e.g. the infamous "From Ashes" day-one DLC) most of the actual game logic usually has to be downloaded. The whole point of that sort of DLC is that you can ship part of the game in an incomplete and untested state and work up until the launch day on debugging and refinement. (In From Ashes' case, it was a huge chunk of the game narrative that had been reworked in aid of a different ending.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Interweb disagrees with you: http://disclockedcontent.wikia... [wikia.com]
You can also add Gears of War 3 to that list.
Re:This is why we can't have nice things (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree.
To me, they've sold you a fully functional product, and only for extra money will they 'license' you to use all of the features.
So, imagine you've bought a car, it's got an awesome radio and a turbo charger and a backup camera. They're hooked up and working, just not active unless you shell out a bunch more money.
This is saying we'll give you the rest of the functionality of the device we've sold you if you'll hand over more money.
This is intentionally making a crippled product, and then gouging your consumers to get the full version.
I see this as just rent seeking, and a business model based on upgrades.
I don't see this as legitimate business, I see it as gouging the consumer and getting found out that your "upgrades" are doing nothing more than unlocking functionality you already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Bulldust.
This kind of thing happens a lot where manufacturers make a product (hardware/software) that is feature-rich and the consumer chooses which features to pay for.
Breaching unpaid-for features is theft.
It's real simple, folks: Pay for the stuff you use.
As for TFA, while it's questionable that publishing a "how to," violated DMCA, not in question is the wisdom of getting into a pissing contest unnecessarily.
Re: (Score:2)
You are so full of bullshit that it is leaking out of your nose. Shill.
Theft [reference.com]: the wrongful removal of personal property. You have to deprive some owner of the benefits of his ownership. Tangibly. Never mind bullshit like "presumed profits now unrealized". Nobody is taking away anything that belongs to anybody else here. This is simple reverse engineering (a rather trivial form of same) which has been a natural right since time immemorial. Not until governments were com
SOP for Test Equipment makers (Score:5, Interesting)
At least one of the Chinese manufacturers has know about these hacks for quite a while and apparently isn't doing much about it. I expect that they are allowing this to obtain more market share from the hobbyists as I doubt most commercial operators would void warranties.
Tek is essentially selling a software package as a value add, and they'll charge what they can until Agilent/Keysight one ups them with less expansive software.
Re: (Score:2)
lexmark tried to use the DMCA to lockout 3rd party (Score:2)
lexmark tried to use the DMCA to lockout 3rd party ink and lost in the courts.
VHS machines. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the day, a lot of manufacturers sold different types of VHS recorders, some with more "features" than others. It turned out that all the "buttons" were there behind the plastic faceplate, and it was just the faceplate itself that determined which were the cheap/feature-less models and which were the more expensive models.
And of course, simply prying off the plastic revealed the extra features.
So, back in the day, would that be a DMCA violation? Would that be theft? Would the IP police be busting down my door and holding a gun to my head for removing a piece of plastic???
'Cause that's what we're headed towards, boys and girls.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, a lot of manufacturers sold different types of VHS recorders, some with more "features" than others. It turned out that all the "buttons" were there behind the plastic faceplate, and it was just the faceplate itself that determined which were the cheap/feature-less models and which were the more expensive models.
Interesting. This reminds me of some current news sites that are paywalled by CSS, and everything is readable when you disable CSS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally that's done to let them turn defective merchandise into a functional product. Those disabled features probably didn't all pass QA testing, whether because they just plain didn't work or were out of tolerance. Later in an item's production, there might just not be enough of a market for the expensive model and they'll start shipping perfectly good inventory as the lower-spec model too, just because the increased cost loss per unit is smaller than retooling the assembly line. This goes on to this day
FU techass (Score:2)
back in my day AMCA (Score:2)
Streisand effect! (Score:2)
Funny. Yesterday we had a couple of modules come in for our MDO3K series scopes, and a co-worker and I were hypothesizing about what's in the modules. We concluded they were probably using smartcard IC's, because after all you're selling these things to engineers - people who would be smart enough to break the system if you did something cheap like a TWI EEPROM.
Ha!
Thanks to this DMCA takedown, and the attention it brought, we'll be breaking out the Bus Pirate. You won't need a smartcard connector or custom
Drivers not included. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is unfortunately an old practice that has been going on for decades.
I bought a US made digital scope over a decade ago the TDS220. With it I bought the communications module providing serial RS232, Parallel centronics, and HPGIB interfaces. With it I could connect an HP Laser printer, or Epson Dot Matrix printer and produce hard copies with a limited library of printers. Ths goal was to print to my PC. Then I found out that capibility was bundled in an expensive software package which was extra. Due to my low volume, I could not justify the expense, so to post documentation online, I used an HP 1100 laser printer and a Cannon flatbed scanner.
Tecktronics did not offer a simple driver just to capture the image on a PC.
Needless to say, that was the last Tektronics scope I purchased. Any future purchases would include a built in USB interface, with nessarry software as part of the TCO when shopping. I won't be burned twice by the batteries not included sales games.
As a scope, the scope works fine as long as you don't want a screenshot directly transferred to a PC. For what I paid to obtain the communications module without any communicaitons software was a huge letdown. The printer module was only a little cheaper. Without the software, that is all this module can be used for. Let the buyer beware.
If you want to buy Made in America, the Americans need to knock off selling cripple ware. It is a bad model and is a huge customer turn off.
This is a tough one. (Score:3)
On one hand, some people might say they paid a huge amount of money for a product that had this (locked) functionality built in, and they have the right to hack it. On another, it's not a trivial amount of effort to write the software that does the analysis, so I could see why a company wants to protect its intellectual property. Otherwise, why would they bother? They would have to ship the device at a higher price to cover the cost of developing the features.
I think the solution here is for the companies to implement reasonable security. Cisco is famous (at least lately) for shipping crippled hardware that is fully capable of performing the functions that are unlocked by various licenses. They implement it as a soft key that ties in with the device serial number (i.e. pay your money, go online to Cisco, give them the license code and your serial number, and they give back another code to enter into the device. And presto, instant feature. Another example I have right here at work is an IBM DS3500 disk array. There are feature keys for everything -- volume snapshots, remote copy, SSD support, increased number of hosts, and a very mysterious, strangely named "Turbo Performance" option [1]. So this is nothing new -- my disk array is running the base configuration and I'm fully aware the controllers in it are shipped with these capabilities. It's weird having to buy $10K pieces of paper, but I see why they do it.
It seems like Tektronix was relying on security through obscurity and they assumed no one would try to build hardware keys to work around their feature protection. HP recently did something similar with the ProLiant and Integrity server line that Oracle/Sun did a while back -- they simply stated that no firmware upgrades would be available on their machines without a warranty or service contract. As someone why buys old hardware for fun, it makes it difficult to get it to the last firmware that HP released for it. But, fixing firmware isn't free, so there's that angle as well. I think the HP/Sun/Oracle stuff is aimed more at forcing you to buy service from them, so it's a little different.
[1] Side note - even the reseller who sold us the device couldn't tell us what Turbo Performance did. After a lot of digging, I figured out that this option is used when you add tons of disk shelves to the array, and it lifts an artificial performance cap on the controllers.
What if? (Score:2)
What if I didn't like the software running on my scope hardware and I decided to erase all of it, wrote my own software and firmware to load onto the EEPROMS, etc, and then released my software as free and open source, along with installation and usage manuals. Seems like DMCA could be used against me in such as a case as well, or am I wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Using copyright to censor a hack which consist basically in explaining that the crippled features of the oscilloscope can be unlocked using the plain SKUs listed in the very own manufacturer page is a DCMA abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure Tektronix will suffer the full penalties of abusing the DMCA. *doles out zero penalties* There, done.
Re: (Score:3)
However, the information is itself a DMCA violation, in that it explains how to circumvent a technical protection scheme. This doesn't look like a DMCA takedown notice to me, but an invocation of what I consider one of the really bad parts of the DMCA. The DMCA takedown system is not well understood, and is controversial, but it's by far the best part of the act.
Note: I'm not a lawyer. Anybody relying on what I say without consulting a real lawyer is a doo-doo head, and deserves what he or she gets.
A side benefit of DMCA, perhaps ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No need when HAD instantly back down and alter the content of the page
Perhaps this is not intended, but a side benefit of DMCA is that the use of DMCA against a certain website will give indication of which site has backbone which site hasn't
HAD certain hasn't
Re:A side benefit of DMCA, perhaps ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Backbone is cheap when you've got the money to stage even a token legal defense, or your hosting provider is a known safe haven from spurious copyright requests. For most of us, it's a luxury we can't afford.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency. And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, "Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect" and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens.
The point being, it is easy to be a coward, until everyone is a coward, then bullies win. The hardest thing to do, is to stand up to bullies, but those that do, aren't going to see much in the way of bullying.
Personally, if
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono.
LMAO, name 'em. It'll be a really short list.
>or Counter Suit Contingency
Because DMCA countersuits rake in enough bucks to make the work worthwhile? Yeah, no.
Re:A side benefit of DMCA, perhaps ? (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on Pro Bono or Counter Suit Contingency. And it is perfectly acceptable to simply say, "Go Ahead! Have you never heard of the Streisand Effect" and then sit back and grab a bucket of popcorn as the exact opposite of what they want happens.
The problem with this idea is that based on the evidence, this DMCA takedown is perfectly legal. Which means if HAD ignored it, they could be taken to court and raked over the coals.
It's one thing to thumb your nose at baseless cyber-bullying, and saying "You're a fool." It's quite another to be a victim of a bad law, and not really have that option. Sadly, it looks like HAD's situation is the latter one.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's a VERY BAD law. But it is the law.
Re: (Score:3)
That exists for indie sites, HAD was one of those once. It now has corporate backers, who did not mind the original Tektronic article but who seem wary to expend that much defending a suit.
Were they still a small indie LLC, with little to no resources, they could probably get a Pro Bono lawyer and have fun with it. What would be the worst Tektronics could win? The domain, if things were structured well; but not even the content (posts owned by poster, sub-license to a new LLC to set up a clone site, blah bl
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA doesn't mention DRM. It mentions somethign along the lines of mechanisms that prevent access to protected works (software can be a mechanism for the purposes of the act).
Personally I don't think this should qualify as infringement since it prevents use - which should not be a copyright violation - rather than duplication, but that's my opinion on what the law should be rather than what it would be when interpreted by the courts.
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with you, but the law has more or less been written to allow corporations to maximize profits.
In truth, I think the DMCA is so broadly written that if they had a default password of "password", their level of incompetence at security is irrelevant. What matters is they had a pretense of security.
In this case, they've locked out functionality which is already there, and are charging for access to it -- or it sounds like that.
I agree that it's your device and you should be able to do anything with it, but apparently publishing it so allow other people to not pay for already there features is a bad thing -- because it interferes with a shitty business model and involves a digital lock.
I think in general, people should just start posting reviews of Techtronix saying they're greedy bastards who sell crippled hardware and then charge ransom to unlock it.
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:4, Interesting)
My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software. They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal. It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software.
I agree with your desscription of it being "crippled". This is essentially a law criminalising repair. In the physical world, if I were to sell off faulty stock (which is legitimate as long as I was honest about the fact that it was faulty), I would not be able to use the law to prevent them from repairing it, even if the buyer was competing with my repair business.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection
A free 30-day trial is a fairly common business model in software. And it involves giving access to software with full functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
marketing...gimmick...Nope. It's an effective business plan. It's the forerunner to the Freemium business model (which I hate by comparison).
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:5, Insightful)
My way of seeing it is that anyone who buys the oscilloscope has a legally acquired copy of the software. They just can't access it. Actually accessing legally acquired software should not be illegal. It's not like there's a business model that would be unsustainable without the protection. If they don't want people to use the software, then don't give them the software. If they pay extra then provide the software.
Exactly this!
I have personally used the MSO series of 'scopes. And I am certain that there wasn't a EULA that I had to click-through when the scope first powered-up. I'm sure there is one along with the Warranty and other info; but, I am pretty certain that, under the "Shrink Wrap" Licensing precedents, I would have not "signed" anything simply by using the 'scope, anymore than I agree to licensing of the applications that are embedded in my TV set, simply by turning it on.
So long as you are not creating a "Derivative Work", nor "Reselling" that firmware, there simply is no Copyright issue here. Tek is DEFINITELY abusing the DMCA here, as well as simply trying to cover-up for a sloppy attempt at what is nothing more than a cost-saving measure.
In fact, they would have had a much more defensible position if they took Hackaday to court for "circumventing security measures of a computing device" (or however that bit is worded in 18 USC...?). But DMCA "Takedown Notices" are hardly EVER challenged, and take only a lawyer-letter with scary language.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is basically the same deal from the early 2000's where people could use a pencil to allow overclocking on a few AMD chips. I don't recall AMD issuing take-downs, or suing anyone for distributing said trick.
If you decide as a company to intentionally gimp products to create price differentiation, expect people to find workarounds. You are creating 'value' out of thin air at the expense of the customer. They are simply taking it back.
In short; whine less, figure out better ways to increase reven
Re: (Score:2)
I think in general, people should just start posting reviews of Techtronix saying they're greedy bastards who sell crippled hardware and then charge ransom to unlock it.
Selling crippled test equipment and charging to unlock features seems to be standard operating procedure in the industry. Some use dongles, some use codes that are coupled to the serial number of your instrument but afaict all the major vendors of such equipment do it one way or the other.
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:5, Interesting)
So if Chrysler sold a car without working air-con and without a working stereo, but if you pay $3000 they will enable them, and then someone discovers that the technological measure is they don't put a fuse in the fuse box, and then you stick a fuse in there, is that a technological measure protected by the DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
So if Chrysler sold a car without working air-con and without a working stereo, but if you pay $3000 they will enable them, and then someone discovers that the technological measure is they don't put a fuse in the fuse box, and then you stick a fuse in there, is that a technological measure protected by the DMCA?
I think it has to be something covered by copyright law like computer code. I don't think that particular use case would apply here since it involves nothing that is affected by copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
No. DMCA is a "big" law with several parts. Part of it is to outlaw DRM compatibility and another part is about takedown notices. There's even a part specific to boat hull designs, though I don't know if it's as controversial as the crazier stuff.
The reason it's so confusing is that when someone makes something that works with DRM, whoever's interests are negatively impacted by people buying the DRMed item (e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, for it to be a DCMA, doesn't the requested takedown have to have something to do with DRM?
It looks like it has. It seems that you pay different prices for oscilloscopes with different feature sets (which is common sense). And it seems that these oscilloscopes have different feature sets because features are produced by software, and access to the software is locked. That's what's called DRM - you didn't pay for the feature, you don't have access to it. And a hack that gives you access to the feature without paying is circumventing the DRM to give you access to the software, exactly what the DMCA
Re:Perhaps they can ask Google to forget that page (Score:5, Funny)
It's an acronym for Digital Control My Ass, so you were right the first time.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not people (Score:5, Funny)
Corporations are not people
but Solyent Green is.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it taste?
Re:Not people (Score:5, Funny)
It varies from person to person....
Re: (Score:3)
Ever read the Dictionary Act? You know, 1 US Code 1? It disagrees: http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]
Analog (Score:2)
Nobody ever does work with analog circuits...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only for the no skill guys that dont really do any design or hacking.
Please feel free to show me your technique for RF transmitter hacking without a scope, hell there are thousands of things that a scope is useful for that really open up abilities.
Honestly only the poesur that really cant do shit in electronics say that a scope is not needed.
Re: (Score:2)