Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Universal Garage Door Opener OK under DMCA 35

Posted by timothy from the how-totally-amazing dept.
Dave Walker writes "According to the EFF's Deep Links page, the Federal Circuit yesterday affirmed that the DMCA does not 'divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public.' The ruling goes on to state 'Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software. What the law authorizes, Chamberlain cannot revoke.' EFF's archives of the case can be found here. Another small victory for the good guys. I think I need a new garage door opener anyhow."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Universal Garage Door Opener OK under DMCA More

Universal Garage Door Opener OK under DMCA

Comments Filter:

  • So does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @09:50AM (#10128305) Homepage
    ...that I can legally produce a product that contains a copy of the DVD decryption software found in a DVD player to play or duplicate encrypted DVD's?
  • 'Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software. What the law authorizes, Chamberlain cannot revoke.'

    How is this different from making a copy of my nintendo game to use on my computer? Or accessing my fairplay encoded music from another music player?

    • Re:How far reaching is this? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by black mariah ( 654971 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @10:11AM (#10128600)
      Not the same thing. We're talking about embedded software. Think more along the lines of universal remote controllers (wait, that's what this is about...). Making a copy of a Nintendo game isn't using that copy, it's using another copy (pedantic semantics, but hey that's law), although I can see where this ruling could be used as precedent. What most people fail to understand is that the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car. What they DO care about is you copying that CD and distributing it wholesale to anyone and everyone.

      • Re:How far reaching is this? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chromaphobic ( 764362 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @10:25AM (#10128783)

        the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car

        Nor do they give a fuck about my legal right to do so. One which the have, on occasion, infringed upon. One which they, I suspect, would happily get permanently revoked if given the choice.

      • So you're telling me that they wouldn't prefer me to buy two copies of that cd: one for my car, and one for my home stereo... if they could? Riiiight. -j

      • ...the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car. What they DO care about is you copying that CD and distributing it wholesale to anyone and everyone.

        I'm more inclined to believe that they're not quite as interested in you giving out burned CDs, but rather, they're more interested in making you pay for multiple formats. If you can copy songs off of your legally purchased CDs, then there's no incentive for you to pay the RIA

      • Making a copy of a Nintendo game isn't using that copy, it's using another copy

        What about playing a DVD or a fairplay encrypted song. There are no copies being made in those cases.
        • Breaking encryption schemes is entirely different from utilizing the decryption software in your computer/DVD player. This is about usage. Nothing more.

          • Re:How far reaching is this? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bay43270 ( 267213 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @10:05PM (#10135142) Homepage
            Breaking encryption schemes is entirely different from utilizing the decryption software in your computer/DVD player. This is about usage. Nothing more.

            DeCSS doesn't break anything anymore than a third party garage door remote 'breaks' the garage door opener. It uses the existing code. The only difference is a matter of degree. CSS goes a little further in obscuring its interface than a garage door opener does. If "Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software" then why can't I use the software on my DVD player to play my DVD?
      • > the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car.

        the King Of Spain [fruvous.com] just might.

  • Small? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @10:12AM (#10128605) Homepage Journal
    Another small victory for the good guys.

    I'd question the use of "small" here. To me, this looks like the whole DMCA house of cards collapsing.

    How long will it be before the Courts recognise a CSS-protected DVD as nothing more than a computer program we run to produce the video?

  • Message to marketing folks and CEOs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:08AM (#10129368)
    Don't try to protect your junk by hiding behind the DMCA. You waste your money on lawyers too.

    Reading through the courts document, it appears that Skylink does not circumvent anything. Chamberlain built a GDO (Garage Door Opener) system that also has a 'feature' to help prevent someone from 'stealing' the code to open the door. However, the system also has a 'feature' that allows the system to be reset. The Skylink transmitter (Model 39) takes avantage of the second of these 'features'. Using the Skylink transmitter with the Chamberlain GDO allows the door to be controlled, but you lose the first feature.

    • Re:Message to marketing folks and CEOs (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Using the Skylink transmitter with the Chamberlain GDO allows the door to be controlled, but you lose the first feature.

      Right, but from what I understand it has the added 'feature' of being able to open your neighbor's door too.

      • Not true. In addition to the rolling code, each transmitter has a unique fixed code. The only way you could open your neighbor's door is if you put their GDO into "program" mode first and programmed it to accept the unique fixed code. The Skylink remote uses the resynchronization feature to reset/bypass the rolling code only, so only the fixed code matters.

    • Re:Message to marketing folks and CEOs (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Reading through the courts document, it appears that Skylink does not circumvent anything. Chamberlain built a GDO (Garage Door Opener) system that also has a 'feature' to help prevent someone from 'stealing' the code to open the door. However, the system also has a 'feature' that allows the system to be reset. The Skylink transmitter (Model 39) takes avantage of the second of these 'features'. Using the Skylink transmitter with the Chamberlain GDO allows the door to be controlled, but you lose the first f

      • But then someone might ask them why the GDO has such a fucking stupid feature in the first place?

        This is like the security on MS Bob, where if you mistyped a password three times it would assume you'd forgotten it and happily reset it for you.

        The 'security feature' is completely insecure. Security sometimes means inconvinence.

        • Actually the nonrepeating code transmit/receive chips I used had built in safeguards -- the receiver would listen for not only the current code, but the next 'x' codes as well so it could automatically resync if the transmitter was keyed out of range.

          at x+1, though, you were screwed. :-)

      • However this also means that the fancy GDO system provides no security at all if it has a built in method to reset the code sequence. This was demonstrated by the Skylink device.
  • Invariably, one of the first "help" calls I get, after we install a new garage door opener, is, "The damned thing won't work until I'm 6 feet away. I could push the button on my old opener half a block away and it would work!" That's right. The Feds changed that one, too. Before Homeland Insecurity. I imagine they'll try to change it, again.
  • "the Federal Circuit yesterday affirmed that the DMCA does not 'divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public.'

    If it is the DMCA that would make it illegal to crack the broadcast flag (which could be used to block digital recording of HDTV programming), shouldn't the reasoning and precidence of this case along with the "fair use" Betamax decision prevent the DMCA from applying ?

    Perhaps we could start ranking the importance of these personal-freedom court ca
  • This may affect the DRM issues surrounding inkjet cartridge refilling. Anybody know?

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close