DMCA Doesn't Protect Garage Door Remotes 304
bgood writes "A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that a univeral remote garage door opener does not violate the DMCA. "Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law," Judge Rebecca M. Pallmeyer said. "This was an attempt to expand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to where it had never gone before," said Andrea B. Greene, attorney for privately held Skylink, the manufacture of the garage door opener in question. "[This is] very good news for consumers." Additional coverage at Wired and Security Focus."
What about software? (Score:4, Insightful)
More importantly, DeCSS type stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about software? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about software? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the parent-linked article:
So now the Media player is a part of the kernel as well? I smell DRM coming on strong...
Re:What about software? (Score:3, Informative)
Friend of mine wanted to remove WindowsMediaPlayer9 (or whatever the latest) from his Win2003Server box, and guess what was needed: just get the standalone version (from microsoft.com) and use the .inf from that to uninstall.
After that you still have Windows Media Player 6. If you uninstall that too, then you also have to get rid of Windows Media Player 5, since they are all there.
Same procedure works in XP I think. The other option is to delete files and clean-up
Hey I've got news for ya (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey I've got news for ya (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hey I've got news for ya (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey I've got news for ya (Score:3, Interesting)
You're being overly critical (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about software? (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, anyone can remove WMP, it's easy. Also, nothing stops you from installing any other software.
Re:What about software? (Score:2)
Re:Object Oriented Software (Score:2)
Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a few years ago it was obvious that you can figure out how a piece of hardware works and tell your friends about it. Now every manufacturer is suing practically anybody who just dares to have a peek inside their product.
Re:Changes (Score:2)
Only a few years ago it was obvious that you can figure out how a piece of hardware works and tell your friends about it.
No it wasn't. We still had patent law. We still had copyright law. We still had laws against unfair business practices. We still had paranoid freaks who think that every law is way more broad than it is. And we still had greedy manufacturers that would sue anyone who dared to not be one of those paranoid freaks.
Re:Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, point taken, we still had jerks that abused the system, but the very point of patent law is supposed to be so you *can* tell your friends about it -- its public information, but you just can't implement it or sell it without permission. The point of copyright law is that you can't publish or republish a given work without permission, except under fair use provisions. And, the point of trade secrets is to protect against stealing undisclosed information (although with less protections so as to encourage disclosure through patents or copyright).
I agree with the original poster -- only a few years ago, the distinction between these things was pretty clear, even when the specifics were occasionally abused. Now with silly laws and the general strangeness of software (copyrighted works that provide real world functionality), suddenly patents are applying to discoveries, ideas, and mathematical algorithms, copyright is being used like unregistered ultra long term patents to gain an indefinite monopoly on the utility of a work and not just its expression, and the DMCA is being abused to protect public information as though it were stolen trade secrets and to further negate any encouragement for companies to add to the commons. Things have definitely changed for the worse.
Re:Changes (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States they certainly are. Not so in other countries, especially around Asia. You had better believe that Asia is going to start kicking ass real soon. The US will never know what hit them (Those CEO's who do know will clutch their bags of money and escape)
Re:Changes (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a trade delegation from Taiwan round here (New Zealand) the other day. They were from the "Digital Content Industry Promotion Office, Ministry of Economic Affairs". They talked a bit about how their IT industry is trying to move away from 'race to the bottom' motherboard manufacturing, and how they are looking to move towards digital content. They showed us some lame arse XBox game and a worse animation, of which they were very proud. Honestly, it looked like a siggraph demo from 1992.
So we asked them what we could do for them - what they wanted from New Zealand. "Training". Yeah, I bet you fucking do. They've looked at their lame-o work, they've looked at Lord of the Rings and thought "Bollocks. Let's chuck these sheep shaggers somewhere between ten and twenty million bucks to show us how it's done. Then... fukkem"
These people have a mission, a big one, and while the US chucks it's money away on invading countries, massive corporate fraud and generally speaking screwing up left right and centre they are quietly working out how to kick all our arses.
Dave
"Liberal Activist Judges" (Score:2, Insightful)
None of the troglodytes that Bush is packing the bench with would have come to this decision. In fact some of them (notably Pryor) maintain that constitutional rights should be subject to majority rule and can rightfully be yanked by a majority in the legislature for any reason.
Thank you, Jesus Christ, for liberal activist judges.
I'm not sure I understand the complaint. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm not sure I understand the complaint. (Score:5, Funny)
If so, that makes your garage door a copy protection technology, and your garage door opener a device for circumventing it. Every time you park you violate the DMCA.
Re:I'm not sure I understand the complaint. (Score:2)
u tard.
I'll take that advice with the import it clearly deserves. You've obviously become quite the expert on "not sounding like an asshat"; have you taken formal etiquette classes or was it all self-taught?
By the way (Score:5, Informative)
The only reverse engineering clause in the DMCA [loc.gov] is this one, which specifically allows reverse engineering to produce an interoperable product:
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Re:By the way (Score:3, Interesting)
You can quote statutory law, but you might not understand the big picture. This is typical of what I see on slashdot when it comes to legal issues: a lot of geeks who know how to navigate detail.
Reverse Engineering is a topic for debate, as it is allowed by some jurisdictions, and also by international treaty, also supported by case law.
For example,
The UK CDPA 1988:
" 50BA Observing, studying and testing of computer programs
(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy
Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is somewhat depressing that anyone with a lawyer and no conscience can try to force us into the most ridiculous legal situations purely for the hell (and profit) of it. What a complete waste of time, tax dollars and effort by all concerned to try to force consumers into an unfair position.
Why don't they just make their replacement either
1. Cheap enough so the competition isn't worth looking at
2. Of such high quality that ditto.
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive.
It also prevents all of the pain-and-suffering fishing expeditions. Right now, I can sue [insert-mega-corp-here] for $20k for nearly anything, and be almost sure they will settle because it is cheaper for them. However, if I had to pay all of their court costs, then they would be motivated to only settle if it was indeed their fault (because not only do they pay the 20k, they also pay my court costs). If I sue them frivilously, then I have to pony up their multiple hundred-thousands in court costs (including time, attorney fees, etc).
America is law-suit crazy because their is very little penalty. Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued? This law would make people much more honest in their claims I believe, and much more likely to defend themselves instead of rolling over an playing dead.
They would be more likely to defend themselves because, if they are right and win, they are not out a single cent. They can hire any high-priced attorney they feel like, because, when they were vindicated, the loser would pay up (the RIAA, for instance). Of course, you better be sure you are actually right, and not trying to win on a technicality or something :)
Re:Depressing (Score:4, Insightful)
> That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive.
At the very least you must set a limit as to what "reasonable" costs are. Otherwise MS come and sue you for $100, but you will also have to pay their $100,000 legal cost if they win!
Anyway, i think this sort of system exists elsewhere in the world, what is the status quo in the US? Does everyone just pay their own legal cost? So even if you win you're screwed?
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer (and to those who get annoyed when they see IANAL lines, you can get into quite a bit of trouble representing or even implying you're one when you're not), but:
It depends. Generally the courts won't award damages, though in certain circumstances they might (in certain circumstances you may have to pay the other sides costs even if you win; those costs are subtracted from your award). I don't think universal paying of the other side's costs is such a great idea anyway, and it's usually promoted by people who just don't know too much about the legal system but work themselves into a lather whenever they read a newspaper article about a high award.
There are several safeguards built into the system. In federal court, for example, there are restrictions placed upon the attorneys (under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if anyone cares) where they have to sign just about everything they submit to the court and can be held accountable if it turns out later to be false. If a complaint is obviously frivolous the judge can just dismiss it before the trial actually begins. And remember if you can't afford your own lawyer you get a state-appointed one, so it's not like you'll ever have no legal protection.
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe that I can agree with this statement. Giant law firms would randomly pick people breaking some stupid regulation and use their vast legal resources to sue them for large amounts of money. Since they had more lawyers, they would usually win and then force the randomly selected victim to pay the court costs. (RIAA anyone?) The law would become a vast automatic random extortion machine. Historically, when that happens people form criminal organizations that use violence and terrorism to protect themselves. Even when the legal environment changes, the criminal violence secret societies remain and become the extortionists that the state was previously.
The real effect of DMCA extortion lawsuits is to transfer economic development to the underdeveloped world. In these places, the amount of wealth generated by reverse-engineering technology and putting it to alternative uses is greater than the amount of generated by lawsuits. Which is why the authorities in the developing world ignore first-world legalities that serve primarily to transfer wealth (to law firms) instead of creating wealth.
In the Congo, no one gives a fuck if you manage to figure out how a garage door opener works. But if you can rewire a surplus garage door opener to make it easier to load heavy sacks onto a river barge, then yeah, someone will be interested in working with you.
Re:Depressing (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, that might also make the little guy less likely to file a lawsuit against a big company that wronged them (negligence, unsafe products, etc.), but this might be mitigated with a cap on the amount that the filing party has to pay.
IMHO, the best solution would be to act
Re: Frivolous Law Suits (Score:3, Informative)
There is already a law on the books (I think it's a federal law) called "Rule 11." [cornell.edu] The defendant can appeal to the judge that a suit is frivolous and baseless. If the judge agrees, the one suing is required to pay the legal f
Re:Depressing (Score:3, Interesting)
Example: The RIAA sues Joe. RIAA spends $10,000 in legal fees; Joe spends $500. The loser, whoever it is, pays the winner $500 for legal fees.
An even more radical alternative would be to make it so that the loser pays an amount equal to his own expenditure; in that case, Joe would owe an extra $500 if he lost, but the RIAA would owe him $10,000 if they lost.
Either way, both pa
Re:Depressing (Score:2)
Re:Depressing (Score:3, Insightful)
I, personally, would be even more afraid of going to court if I were going to get screwed for lawyers fees as well, if the other guy comes up with some idiotic argument that wins. A large company can afford to eat my lawyers' fees. I can't afford t
Re:Depressing (Score:2)
The calculation is rather more complicated than that. They need to balance the ratio of the settlement cost and the sum of their costs, your costs and court-ordered compensation cost (plus any adverse publicity) against the probability that you will win. You can sometimes push your costs up by taking out insuranc
Re:Depressing (Score:3, Interesting)
Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued?
Umm, who has the RIAA wrongly sued?
I'd modify your proposal just slightly. If the defendant in a suit wins, then the complaintant has to pay court costs. But those court costs can never exceed the costs spent by the complaintant in bringing about the complaint.
If the complaintant wins, they don't collect court costs. They might get punitive damages, under the current rules,
Re:Depressing (Score:2)
For starters, this woman [macobserver.com] and this guy [ananova.com].
And if you believe our poster child 12 year old [ananova.com] actually had >1000 tunes on her PC (on a dialup in less than 90 days), you're dreaming.
Re:Depressing (Score:3)
They had signed up for the $29.95 Kazaa 'service' 3 months prior [foxnews.com] to getting sued. And remember, this is a 12 year old honor student, obviously not spending all of her time downloading stuff.
Re:Depressing (Score:4, Insightful)
1000 files was supposedly the cutoff for being a target of the RIAA. Hell, there aren't 1000 songs that would appeal to the average 12 year old.
Her brother was 9.
Or maybe, just maybe, the RIAA screwed up.
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll never happen. Trial lawyers know exactly what such a change would do to their business, and they also are a very powerful lobbying force.
Several years ago, one of my state assemblymen admitted to me that our state's (New Jersey) automobile insurance system was completely screwed up, but that nobody could fix it because the trial lawyers' lobby had too much power.
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of whatever bias you have against The Trial Lawyers, they are on the right and moral side in this case. For every big case you hear about where some lawyer get some huge settlement, there are a thousand others where people are getting screwed by Insurance companies.
Of course feel free to believe whatever the heck you want. Afterall Insurance companies have such stellar record when it comes to acting ethical, how could they possibly be in wrong?
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
How so? The only thing this would accomplish is making it riskier for the little guy to stand up for himself. Not only does he have to risk his life's savings to pay for his own legal defense, but now, if he looses(and going up against a megacorporation, they'll drag it out until he's homeless on the street), he's got to pay their legal expenses as well?
The only thing your idea would do is make the legal system all that less accessible.
Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued?
Of course.... they've got more money than god. I would not doubt if there was enough money to pay 10x over.
A+ for good intention, D for implementation.
Re:Depressing (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're not being evil enough and thinking it through to the most abusive conclusions >=)
A loser-pays-all-court costs situation would squash any chance of getting justice if your a small guy who was wronged by a big guy. Use the SCO example again - say I'm a small kernel developer, and I sue them for stealing my code. I can only afford a modestly-priced lawyer, and they have a flock of lawyers. I will probably lose, right? And then they, with their flock of lawyers, will claim enormously huge court costs, just to punish me for daring to question them. Even a lawsuit between near-equals could be perverted this way, simply by drawing the case out.
Faced with such possibilities, the number of lawsuits would drop drastically, but the amount of lawbreaking would skyrocket - because the big fish would know they could get away with anything. In making legal defense possible, you've made legal attack impossible for all but the richest few.
A better solution... (Score:2)
Leave it at the judge/jury's discretion (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutes are not very good in this case, because there are many reasonable grounds to go to court, and losing shouldn't necessarily imply that one side was all right and another was all wrong, in particular in civil suits where the standard is only "preponderance of evidence".
Leave it at the judge/jury to decide if either case should
Re:Depressing (Score:2)
Incorrect. It is in fact the best way to advance the law. Otherwise, it is unclear about how the law actually does apply to these types of situations. What actually works well are legal cases where the concepts are tried, and they succeed or fail, but something is learnt and charts a course for how the law is to be used and interpreted in the future.
I believed the same fallacy that you do, but I grew up and realised that this legal churn is in fact productive for society, so long as the integrity of the le
But can your neighbor sue you? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, why not? (Score:2)
If somebody cleaned out my garage because of poorly designed security, you bet I would sue the company (or I would certainly tell my insurance adjuster to look into it).
Maybe they will start making you sign an EULA when you get a door installed. (No warranties, expressed
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:2)
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:2)
Many doors are now designed so you can't open them without disabling the motor controls (unlatch the door from the drive chain/screw) - plus there's often no external handle on the door. This is a bigger deal in states like California, where an attached garage is considered part of the house - forcing a garage door is tantamount to breaking & entering the main residence.
Re:But can your neighbor sue you? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But can your neighbor sue you? (Score:2)
Not under the DMCA. But almost assuredly under one of the new electronic crime "anti-hacker" laws. ;)
Some of the neighborhood kids and I did roughly the same thing. One of the kid's household had gotten a new garagedoor system and the old stuff sat in a box. It wasn't long until we fished out the old control and had it open. And then it wasn't much longer until we had discovered how to twiddle with the settings and began doing circuits through the neighborhood seein
This is not the last time (Score:5, Insightful)
that the DMCA is going to be used to squash a competing product. As long as it's on the books it's going to be used willy-nilly on anything remotely related to so-called IP rights.
Insightful? Off-topic, maybe. (Score:2)
Perhaps, perhaps not, but this has nothing to do with the article. If anything, this story is a shining example of our U.S. Justice System constraining the DMCA to what it was intended for. It should RESTORE one's faith, not shatter it!
Re:Insightful? Off-topic, maybe. (Score:2)
It, unfortunately, is lamented that it needs to be held up as a shining example of the DMCA being constrained. See, for example the other news story today of fatwallet.com censoring prices [slashdot.org] on their site because of a DMCA notice sent after FatWallet's lawyers had gone home on Friday night.
All too often a small company will back off in the face of such a demand letter rather than
Re:Insightful? Off-topic, maybe. (Score:2)
Dude, a single judge ALWAYS decides the outcome of a civil trial. That's nothing specific to the DMCA. The fact is, the system WORKED.
And if this one judge had failed, perhaps the next up on the appeals chain wouldn't have.
Re:This is not the last time (Score:2)
Yes, I meant it as "try to squash". I should have been more specific.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
What we've gotten out of this ruling is that a garage door opening signal code isn't art, and therefore can't enjoy a copyright. Therefore, it doesn't look good for a chip that emits a signal that communicates a message that equates to nothing more than "I'm made by Lexmark."
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Generally, to rule a technology or invention illegal, it must really be without any redeeming use. So the question really comes down to, just because the DVD is encrypted, does that mean the copyright owners ha
Re:Hmmm... DeCSS nonsense (Score:2)
DMCA Limits (Score:5, Funny)
This presumably means that automated sprinkler systems for the lawn also lie outside the DMCA, but IANAL.
Simon.
Universal T.V. Remotes Next? (Score:4, Interesting)
JGG
Supreme Court Enterprise? (Score:4, Funny)
The Internet. The Final Free Frontier. This is the the 5 year mission of US Enterprises, their continuing mission to seek out new copyright abuses and new violations, to boldly extend the DMCA where it has never been extended before!
[Queue 64kps mp3 of Star Trek music]
Alas, if only the DMCA were badly written science fiction...
Mmmmm... Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't care much for these people. I mean, you bring their product into your home for whatever your reason is (usually because it's the most financially prudent) and then they try to force you to pay out the nose forever and ever simply because you bought their product. It's just tantamount to someone coming into your house and telling you what you can and can't buy, these sort of strong arm tactics that are the byproduct of an overtly litigious society just show the ways that the free market eats itself up. You have huge corporations claiming that their patents need to be protected or else their innovation will be stifled, when they just use those patent laws to go off and further stifle innovation.
Seriously folks, I don't know where the people that pass these laws and run these companies were educated, but they were ripped off, because they surely didn't learn what the hell a free market was. It isn't that hard people, it's a market where you have a bunch of goods and people can buy whatever they want, that's all it is. Not a market where you can force people to only buy from you after they already bought something from you.
In a related story (Score:5, Funny)
This is a bad decision. (Score:2, Funny)
First of all, there's really no legitimate reason why you can't use the usual garage door remote. One of the guidelines when making an important decision like this is "do consumers somehow lose functionality of the product or the ability to use it" by enforcing the DMCA? The garage door opener remote provided by the company is in no way cr
Re:This is a bad decision. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is a bad decision. (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Maybe mine slipped off the visor and out the window while I was driving. Maybe I prefer my own. Maybe it opens my own door as well as my mother's. One opener instead of two clipped to the visor. Maybe I don't like the color of the original.
> And second, I've had someone break into my garage by using one of these things.
> I, for one, would like to see these devices outlawed.
Someone stole my girl friend's purse from my car by throwing a ball bearing at the window and grabbing it. The thought of calling for a ban on ball bearings never crossed my mind.
> Nothing of any value was stolen, thankfully, but it leads me to believe the only added benefits of these devices are to theives [sic].
Allow me to dispell this belief. That is incorrect.
> It's too bad the courts got this wrong.
The courts got it right. Chamberlain was attempting to enforce a monopoly by misapplying a law that doesn't apply.
> There's no legitimate uses for reverse engineering these devices.
I direct your attention to 17 USC(annotated) 1201(f). You may reverse engineer a technology for purposes of interoperability.
PS. Who the hell modded this guy funny?
Re:This is a bad decision. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are also legitimate uses for universal garage door openers. Or do you deny this?
Also, there is no monopoly on garage door openers or garage door openers or their remotes. If a company wishes to stop third-party remotes from opening their garage door openers, then that is there right.
It is their right, yes, but not by applying law that deals with copyrights to something that should be covered by trade secret or patent.
Or, please explain how some copyrighted material was accessed? (Even then, see below for the interoperability exemption.)
If they want to stop third party remotes from being made, perhaps they should make their signalling system a bit more secure?
It also wouldn't take too much effort to build an opener if you really wanted to break into someone's garage. Someone parked on the street with a frequency counter can get the frequency for that garage door opener, and then it is a simple matter of recording the signal and reproducing it.
You aren't going to stop it by making legitimate devices illegal.
Should universal TV/stereo/etc. remotes be made illegal? Using your logic, they should. Someone could turn my TV on by pointing one through a window and cost me money when the power bill comes.
Also, there is no interoperability at issue here. That is simply not correct. I think you misunderstand what it means. The classic example of this is Compaq reverse engineering IBM's BIOS for the purpose of allowing software that runs on IBM machines to run on Compaq machines. Interoperability does not apply here, however. The two situations are not similar at all.
Sure there is. It is legal to make devices that are interoperable with other manufacturer's products. The DMCA even specifically allows it with regard to reverse-engineering copy control methods to provide interoperability. Though the DMCA still shouldn't apply here.
Mods, do your job and mod this troll down.
I think you are referring to your own post.
Re:This is a bad decision. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad you agree there are legitimate uses of ball bearings. Too bad you too fucking stupid to see what I meant. Read what I said again, this time slower. Mouth the words out loud if it still confuses you.
There is a monopoly on remote controls compatible with Chamberlain garage door openers, or there was until this trial was finished. A company does not have the right to stop 3rd party remote controll
Re:This is a bad decision. (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the original is broken, or lost, or you have several vehicles.
And second, I've had someone break into my garage by using one of these things.
That is a security issue, not a copyright issue. The code to my garage is encoded using a 10-bit switch. Since anybody could open my garage in a reasonable period of time by simply trying all possible codes, I don't don't keep valuable items in my garage
Thank God. (Score:2, Funny)
"reasonable expectation"... (Score:5, Funny)
Universal door opener.. (Score:5, Funny)
Could the tide be turning? (Score:5, Informative)
Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle recently introduced the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act [eff.org] to amend the DMCA to stop the most outrageous abuses of it.
Lexmark recently failed in their attempt misuse the DMCA to force out aftermarket ink cartridges that compete with their own overpriced products.
Now this case where a garage door opener maker wanted to abuse the law to force out a universal remote control maker.
I hope the failure of these companies to abuse the DMCA to enforce their monopolies is a sign that the courts and the legislature are waking up.The DMCA is a dirty word, both online and in meatspace. The DMCA is a flawed piece of law.
The DMCA is being used to stifle competition and to gag disclosures of security flaws. It is worded so broadly that it is invoked in many situations to which it logically should not apply. At the same time, it is worded so narrowly that things which should be exempted are not.
Material that is copyrighted becomes public domain after a certain period of time. When that time period is up, the material belongs to the public. This is a fact that is not mentioned often enough these days. We should not destroy rights and freedoms meant to be permanent in the name of protecting a copyright that is meant to be temporary.
The DMCA must be withdrawn or amended before it causes irreparable harm to our society. Whatever replaces it should acknowledge that our permanent Fair Use rights and our permanent right to free speech are far more important than a corporation's right to protect its temporary copyright.
Re:Could the tide be turning? (Score:4, Insightful)
Material that is copyrighted becomes public domain after a certain period of time.
No it doesn't. Material that was published before 1923 and is copyrighted becomes public domain after a certain period of time. Material first published on or after January 1, 1923, remains under the beginnings of a perpetual copyright on the installment plan. A 19-year extension in 1978 was followed by a 20-year extension in 1998. However, the Supreme Court of the United States, when upholding the second extension in Eldred v. Ashcroft, strongly hinted in its opinion that it wouldn't uphold further extensions that establish a clear installment-plan pattern.
Ink cartridges applicable. (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, so I'm wondering how this statement is inapplicable to ink cartridges. It seems to me that a judge sitting on another bench would be unable to make a distinction between this precedent as it applies to one product over another.
Re:Ink cartridges applicable. (Score:2)
Re:Ink cartridges applicable. (Score:2)
Just to take the federal court system as an example: There are district courts that actually hold trials. A group of district courts are supervised by a circuit court, which hears any appeals for cases in those district courts. The supreme court supervises all the circui
Yeeehah! (Score:2, Funny)
A good new law we should put into effect. (Score:5, Funny)
Thus, if a component of a product you own, like a car or something, breaks down, it is illegal for you to get a replacement part from any source, however derived, other than the original copyright holder of that part, even if said original copyright holder has gone out of business and/or no longer exists. It would even be illegal for you to obtain a replacement that was made by that source but sold or given to you by someone else (in other words, you could not go to a junk yard and disassemble the part from another car, because that is piracy). This would be good for consumers because it directly coincides with the noble, good, and correct line of thinking that led to that fine law known as the DMCA.
Oh yeah, and people should be put into prison upon being born, because that is human genome piracy.
Re:A good new law we should put into effect. (Score:2, Funny)
It's at least two counts of human genome piracy. One half from your mother and one half from your father, as well as whatever claims their fathers, mothers and further ancestors have on it.
If you're cloned, then you would be a lesser pirate, but all pirates of course deserve the same fate. Maybe you could argue that you are the same person as the person you were cloned from and pin some of the blame on th
new DCMA standard? (Score:2)
If the DCMA can be defended against by Consumers have a reasonable expectation, then I think we would all be a lot safer from the DCMA. Somehow I think this concept is going to be limited to cases where the company claiming the DCMA doesn't have much cash to lube the wheels of justice.
I wish that DMCA would have won. (Score:2)
Or, better yet, have a judge simply throw it out.
Businesses trying to commit suicide? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a certain company makes it illegal for you to use a universal remote, then that is a strong downside to their product. Think of it as a feature (in the case of TVs for sake of argument: TV 1 supports HDTV and universal remotes, TV 2 supports HDTV, but you will be sued if you try to use a universal remote on it. Well, I think i'd buy TV 1. That's the free economy for you
Likewise with printers: if printer A won't let me use cheaper 3rd party cartridges, then I'm not going to buy their printer.
*D*CMA??? (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, tell me
1.) How a garage door or garage door opener uses a digital signal.
2.) What copyrighted material was accessable after the alleged violation.
~Will
No. (Score:4, Informative)
Putting my money where my mouth is... (Score:2)
Universal Ink Cartriges? (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the difference between buying a third-party garage door opener and buying a third-party ink cartrige?
Oh the irony (Score:3, Funny)
the ruling is wrong, its what the DMCA is for (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the whole point of the DMCA was to trample competition? This case is meaningless, the whole law abolished is what we want.
The laws purpose is to basically give companies a tool that allows them to produce shabby token security and use law to cover the rest, its like producing a very very bad lock and saying "its ok, its just a token lock, if anyone does break in we'll sue them". You might as well ju
There's that Word Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Just in case you were getting any wild ideas.
Companies seem to have forgotten the Clayton Act (Score:3, Insightful)
Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
And how was this different in the past... (Score:4, Informative)
And this is different from the past? I would argue this is the whole point of Constitutional checks and balances - to prevent dumb laws from infringing on rights. Since the judiciary has always been one of the primary components of this system, nothing has really changed for nearly 200 years. Judges are and have been the public's first line of defense against the government trampling on our rights.
I suggest reading about the "Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798" to see how important the judiciary is to preserving our rights.
Re:I work for Genie (Score:2)
Don't feel bad, it's the reality of the paycheck.
I'm intrigued by this new type of troll. (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, it's all a crock of shit.
Moderators: Don't moderate up anyone informative if they don't offer any proof or make a claim and they have a shoddy posting record. Otherwise YOU WILL be slaughtered in M2.
Re:Universal Garage Door Opener? (Score:2)