Court Rules That Bypassing Dongle Is Not a DMCA Violation 266
tcrown007 sends along an appeals court ruling that, for once, limits the reach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention clause. "MGE UPS makes UPS systems and software that are protected by hardware dongles. After the dongles expired, GE bypassed the dongles and continued to use the software. MGE sued, won, and has now lost on GE's appeal. Directly from the court's ruling (PDF): "Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision... The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing.' Say what? I think I just saw a pig fly by."
If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Insightful)
All that the precedent does is that it sends a warning to people to stop frivolously mixing in DMCA into what should be covered by contract law. The dongle is a mere enforcer of the contract so unless someone at MGE was very very daft GE would be in violation of a contract.
So while the first impression is that a pig has taken off, a more close inspection is showing that it is continuing on a ballistic trajectory after someone gave it some initial thrust. Not really flying.
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Funny)
We wont know if the pig is flying until it continuesly fails to hit the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Even if it never hits the ground it could still be orbiting, and that's not quite the same thing as flying either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still good! It's just a little airborne!
"It's gone, Dad."
I know ... I know ... *sob*
Re: (Score:2)
f this precedent holds we may be in very good shape. The obvious generalization is to allowing such circumvention for fair use. If that occurs, then most of the problems with this legislation go out the window.
Just to clarify: I hold in my hands a DRM-"protected" DVD that I own. You stand besides me, and I could lend the CD to you. What things do you think "fair use" would allow me and you to do?
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in principle the DMCA is merely another charge to be tacked on when a crime (copyright violation) has already occurred. Sort of how you can get a heavier charge if you're near a school, use a firearm, are a felon, etc. In this case, if you not only violated copyright, but went well out of your way to do it by "circumventing a protection method". (makes it harder to claim accidental infringement)
But historically it's been getting used as the primary law broken, which was not what it was originally intended for. That's like being charged with being in a school zone, without any proof of your having been speeding. "So would you like to settle with us for having been in the school zone, or do you want to get drug through court to prove your innocence on speeding?"
The unfortunate part is that the law has technically been getting interpreted correctly as written, because it's written backwards in the first place. This judge that overturned on appeal probably interpreted the law for what it was supposed to be, not what it is. Normally I'm against this, but in this case true justice actually prevailed over book justice. As such I'm not sure whether to support this or not. It sets a bad example of how the legal system is supposed to work - that it has to malfunction for fair justice to prevail. I'd be a lot happier seeing the law getting fixed than getting end-run-around. Mainly because this is likely to be an isolated incident.
The entire idea that someone can be charged with circumvention without being charged with copyright violation is just plain backward.
I read it differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge seemed clear to me that the previous court's award for the continued use of the software was correct. But that the DMCA did not in itself entitle them to further damages.
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think as a whole it is a bad ruling.
The part where he ruled circumventing a Dongle to use software you are legally entitled to use is not illegal is good.
But, GE was illegally using software which it did not have the rights to use with of without the Dongle, which the judge said is OK. This part of his ruling is bad.
The judge did not say it was okay, only that MGE failed to provide sufficient proof of damages (they tried to claim damages against the total revenue of the division and not just revenue related to servicing MGE UPS products)
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think GE still have to pay for violating the copyright/contract. The DMCA claim got thrown out because a dongle is a use prevention rather than a copy prevention device. The software itself was probably copied without circumventing anything. MGE are probably saying: "Oh what the hell it was worth a shot" regarding the DMCA claim, but it was not the core of their case. Regarding precedent, ther's not much in it for Joe average with his DVD collection.
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this quote is a huge precedent...
It means everything for Joe Average's DVD collection. He should have no problem putting it on a home server or a laptop, for instance, because he is not violating the Copyright Act by copying it for his own viewing/use.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait - as far as I can tell that use is still a violation of copyright law, just not DMCA? So Joe Average is making a copy while his license on the DVD says no copying? Maybe that's better b/c DMCA is harsher on penalties than traditional copyright law?
Those question marks are really questions.. Any clarification appreciated..
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if the DVD says "no copying" if he is making copies that qualify as "fair use", which would take precedence. DMCA isn't about copying anyway, it is about bypassing security encryption. The judge appears to be saying "yes, they used the software illegally and are subject to fine, but using a crack to get around a dongle is not a DMCA violation by itself.".
In otherwords, if you copy your DVD using any method, then they can still sue you for infringement but is likely not a DMCA violation if you are doing so simply to USE the DVD (fair use). If you did it to make copies to sell, that might be a different case. In short, if you are breaking encryption for your applications that qualify under fair use, thus perfectly legal (make a personal backup copy of a disk you already own, or to create a critique, to parody but not satire, for education, etc.) then there is a good chance that you won't be found to be in violation of the DMCA. Keep in mind, IANAL and even being legally in the right can put you in the poorhouse defending yourself here in the good old USA.
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that a single copy for archival purposes is allowed.
There is no strict number of copies allowed. However, it's also not true to say that any time you copy a DVD for any purpose it's a copyright violation. There are many circumstances under which it's not, and backups have generally been held to be one of them. Having a large number of backup copies might be taken as evidence that your purpose was something other than backing the DVD up, though.
Also, the backups and the original must be treated as an indivisible unit. I.e., if you lend/sell/give the original (or any backup), then all other copies must go along as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I actually read that entire PDF. The reasoning is so convoluted, I fear my brain has twisted around itself. How do I unread it?
Really - having read it, all I got from it was that the claimant failed to prove damages. Well - that, and the fact that downloading and using a hacked software doesn't make me liable for bypassing DMCA. The second part is the only part that really matters to most slashdotters. But, the first point seems at least as important. If the claimant cannot reasonably demonstrate real
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play on on TV.
If the court ruled that a dongle is an anti-use device, rather than an anti-copying device, it seems to me that DeCSS might get cleared the same way.
Any legal types out there want to comment
Re:If this precedent holds... (Score:4, Funny)
Damn. If only there was some kind of slashdot user who was some kind of legal advisor from some big county in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're looking in the wrong place. This case is not about GE (well, it is, but not for us). This case is about the DMCA and cracks are showing up in its armor.
This ruling would never have come down if the original defendant had not been a giant like GE. But it's good that corporations learn that the knife of these awful laws cuts both ways. Ultimately, these laws (and treaties) are going to hurt busine
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to use the software is not one reserved exclusively for the author. That is, of the thousands of things you might do with a copy of the software, using it falls into the same category as "turning the CD into a frisbee" and "deleting it from your hard drive", not the same category as "making derivative works" and "selling copies" (those being the things you need permission for).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is still not legal to keep using the software after the contract is up if it required to keep your software license. It is just not a DMCA violation to do so.
it's still good! (Score:2, Funny)
Wrong law to try and apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the opinion you will see that the Court found that they did not circumvent anything. Someone else did the circumvention and GE/PMI simply used a cracked copy.
Re: (Score:2)
The copy in RAM is exempted in 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] Other states probably also have similar laws. You don't need a license to use an authorized copy of software.
Re: (Score:2)
The copy in RAM is exempted in 17 USC 117(a)(1) [cornell.edu] Other states probably also have similar laws. You don't need a license to use an authorized copy of software.
The devil is in the details. You are allowed to make a copy into RAM if you have the right to use the software (so if I sold you some software with a contract to do anything you want with the software except loading it into RAM, and sued you as soon as you use it, that wouldn't fly). But it is a copy, obviously, so if you _don't_ have the right to use the software then everytime you load it into RAM you commit copyright infringement. That's why EULAs actually work. Nobody can hold you to the terms of a EULA
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but you do not need a license to use a computer program any more than you need a license to read a book or look at a painting. Loading a copy into RAM as an essential step in the utilization of the program is not infringement (see above.) I challenge you to find anything in the law that says otherwise.
EULAs work because the terms are presented to you and you take some affirmative step that signifies that you agree to them, just like any other contract.
Re: (Score:2)
A copy is authorized if it's made under the authority of the copyright holder. When you obtain a copy of software that was manufactured by the copyright holder or someone authorized by them to manufacture copies, or download it from the copyright holder or someone authorized to distribute their software, then that copy is authorized.
EULAs exist because software companies want more than copyright gives them. A EULA is just an ordinary contract and has nothing to do with copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
The same reason that police say "You can't make a video of us in action!" in states where there is no such law (and other states with those laws, if you consider the US Constitution). They do it because they think it gives them more rights, although this has never been tested. Considering you aren't actually SIGNING a contract, it is likely that a click through EULA isn't worth the paper it's written on.
EULAs are the equivalent of McDonalds saying "By accepting this beverage from our drive-thru, you are a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not as bad as MS and the ever changing EULAs.
I take it you haven't used iTunes lately. I get a 250 page document to agree to on my phone everytime i fool around with a free new app. This is not an MS phenomena.
17 USC 117 (Score:2)
They made a copy of the software from disk to ram to run it.
Which is not an infringement under U.S. law: 17 USC 117 [copyright.gov].
The summary could be better (Score:5, Informative)
[quote]MGE sued, won, and has now lost on GE's appeal.[/quote]
TFA:
[quote]A jury awarded MGE more than $4.6 million in damages for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, but the trial judge dismissed its Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim. MGE appealed, arguing that its dongles barred the kind of access to its software that the Act is meant to prevent.[/quote]
MGE appealed the trial judge throwing out the DMCA claim. The appeals court confirmed the ruling. GE didn't appeal anything.
I always have a hard time associating... (Score:2)
Common sense prevails again. Now let's start blocking common sense in EULA's and only license the software to our users that way any time they use our software they run the risk of breaking our agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense is already blocked in many EULA:s.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft at least isn't calling it EULA anymore. They are calling it a CONTRACT.
So I think this is kinda cute - I print out said "contract". I make some modifications, add or remove some clauses. And I am still waiting for an authorized Microsoft rep to come to my place and sign said "contract".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they don't doesn't mean they can't.
And the fact that they are prepared to at a moments notice doesn't make me feel loved as a customer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is the problem?
The problem is that some people do not like having terms dictated to them, "problems" or not. It's the principle of the thing. An "agreement" is between TWO parties. An EULA is one party telling another party what to do. Only the funny thing is, back in my day, usually it was the guy that was doing the paying that got to have a say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's so bad about it? Microsoft expressly disclaims any and all warranty and liability, while maintaining that you do not possess your first sale doctrine rights. Check this out:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/09/09/student-beats-microsoft-legally-by-himself/ [downloadsquad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Amend it with a post it on your screen prior to clicking.
"Copyright and Right of First Sale applies; rest of contact is null and void"
to amend the contract prior to "signing" (clicking) "I agree"
. . . just as you would amend any other contract you find objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
There are good reasons for Microsoft to call it a contract. It doesn't make it so, though. If you purchase a copy of Microsoft software from someone other than Microsoft, there is no privity of contract between you and Microsoft. Nor is there any consideration that passes between you and Microsoft.
Lack of consideration means that even if you agree to the "contract" that displays during the installation process, Microsoft hasn't provided you any additional benefits beyond those you already have, those for wh
Dream (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
But does this ruling mean you're now allowed to circumvent the region code on DVDs so you can watch a DVD you bought in Europe in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a ruddy good question. I've always thought region codes were rather stupid, personally, though I know why they're used.
Re:Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better, disable the UOPs so one doesn't need to sit through 30 minutes of ads before hitting the main menu? UOP was meant to just show the big FBI notice, not protect the ads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Torrenting is usually (unless all you do is leech) simultaneously redistributing while downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the judge mentioned this possibility in the Tenenbaum case. The problem I see is that you are almost certainly uploading it to other people who are not licensed.
Before you get too excited... (Score:4, Informative)
Conclusion. VI.
For the foregoing reasons, [1] we AFFIRM the district court's grant of
GE/PMI's Rule 50(a) motion dismissing MGE's DMCA claim. [2] We also AFFIRM
the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against GE/PMI's use of
MGE's software and trade secrets. [3] We REVERSE the district court's denial of
GE/PMI's Rule 50(a) motion on MGE's copyright infringement, unfair
competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims for MGE's failure to
prove damages under 17 U.S.C. 504(b) and Texas law, [4] and RENDER a takenothing
judgment for MGE.
GE/PMI already paid for what they've done (the Rule 50 motions) and the injunction effectively means they'll either have to setup a new support contract or replace the UPS systems.
This opens a lot of doors (Score:2)
Anything DeCSS related just got opened. I can RIP DVDs legally if I own them. This also means that people can build DVD/hard drive juke boxes for home use and sell them where previously, we have heard that such products were blocked due to DMCA threats and claims.
This is a good thing. I expect to see this fought hard.
Re:This opens a lot of doors (Score:5, Interesting)
Think it's more like Linux users will be able to use "open source" programs to play Blu-Ray disks legally.
As it stands, it's illegal to rip/copy the Blu-Ray to another format for storing or viewing.
However this ruling makes it legal to break the encryption just for the purposes of playback. (The intended function of the disk is for playback).
But what do I know! IANAL!
Re:This opens a lot of doors (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble with that is that GE's "circumvention" allowed them to use the product, but had no bearing on their ability to copy the product.
With DVDs/Blu-Rays, there's no distinction: the same "device" which allows you to "use" the product also allows you to copy it.
Or am I wrong about the GE case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This opens a lot of doors (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I don't believe you can apply this same logic to DeCSS
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that interpretation to me sounds like nonsense. You can very well copy a DVD image without DeCSS'ing it, and then use DeCSS on-the-fly to play it. The "copy protection" of CSS depends on the CSS key being only in a few approved devices just like this software only works with approved dongles. If it's not a violation of the DMCA to turn an unusable copy into a functional copy, then effective DeCSS doesn't protect against copyright violation either.
Re:This opens a lot of doors (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the Wiki, you could already rip the DVDs. It was illegal to make and distribute the tools to rip such DVDs, though.
what about the "trafficking" prong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that in this case GE is a large company which has within it the know-how to break copy protection. But even if GE was within their rights to circumvent the dongles, it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else -- even if the present ruling stands and the recipient would be allowed to break the protections themselves.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies. So this ruling actually means basically nothing to individuals, and very little to companies (except for those that have in-house engineers capable of reinventing the wheel).
At the bottom there's no way for the courts to fix the DMCA, since it's likely within Congress's powers to enact and it's not up to the courts to second-guess Congress about the policy choices – no matter how bad they were. The only way to fix the DMCA is for Congress to fix it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies.
I think you mean it criminalizes "trafficking" in circumvention technology.
Re: (Score:2)
>it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else
>the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in [...] circumvention technology
They used the software to *use* the locked-down content, not to violate the copyright, therefore the software is not a circumvention tool (for violating copyright) and can be distributed without breaching the DMCA.
"Using" software involved copying (Score:3, Interesting)
For the anti-trafficking provision what matters is the potential uses of the tool. That GE as the initial develper used the tools for legitimate purposes is beside the point -- as long as the tools can be used to circumvent copyright protection, they fall under the no-trafficking prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case then the fact that the dongle prevents the program from running (and as such prevents it/parts of it from being read into memory) would be enough to be covered under copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Citation needed, copies to RAM are not counted as copying for the purposes of copyright law in the US.
Wrong. It counts as copying. But it is copying that is allowed by law _if you have the right to use the software_ in the first place, just like making a backup copy. If you don't have the right to use the software, then every time you load the software into RAM you commit copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, AFAIK the present ruling (see Blizzard's Glider case) is that a copy to RAM is a true copy that's not even covered under fair use and is only allowed because of the EULA. Therefore if you violate the EULA, or haven't agreed to one, making a copy to RAM is a violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It helps establish a legal use case for the technology. It at least moves it into the same gray area as 'video stabilizers'.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a key part of the ruling is that GE did NOT break the protections themselves.
Bottom line (Score:2)
GE has deeper pockets than the other company.
Re:GE has deeper pockets (Score:5, Insightful)
Shut up and enjoy the ride.
HDCP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can any Slashdotters with legal know-how are to comment on any implications this ruling might have for HDCP stripper dongles/boxes?
UPS software that's protected by a dongle??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
Good, finally something to stop such nonsense.
I imagine these UPS systems are incredibly expensive as it is, and the maker does something so they're limited use? Which was probably discovered AFTER the fact. To me, that's highway robbery, you buy a machine, then have to upgrade a license?
I have to say, even though GE is one of the big evil companies that most slashdotters hate (or should hate, given hate towards companies like microsoft, GE makes them look like angels) They had a right to fight this.
Sadly,
How about that law opening up car repair Will othe (Score:2)
How about that law opening up car repair Will other stuff like this fall under it?
"Licencing" a product. (Score:2, Insightful)
If Company X says you're merely licensed, doesn't that mean that they now need to provide replacements in perpetuity? Lets say my priceless collection of 8 tracks has finally lost its magnetism. Isn't that company now required to provide me with replacement 8-tracks, at cost? Never mind that 8-tracks are a dead tech, I paid the license for 8-tracks, therefore they are OBLIGATED to make sure I keep that format.
Or even games? Shouldn't companies be obligated to support EVERY game they sell to valid "licensees
Bypassing Dongles ~= Bypassing Media Checks (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the equivalent of buying a game or a program that requires a media check (e.g. "Insert DVD/CD-ROM to start the game") and then downloading a modified executable from GameCopyWorld.com [gamecopyworld.com] to play your own game without the media check. Many people have been doing this for a long time and this ruling sets a precedent that effectively legitimizes the usage of these helpful executable.
The problems with GCW is that a lot of times they include a full copy of the modified executable instead of just a small patcher or cracker program so they are still violating the copyright on the original executable code by distributing it without a license from the authors. The quick solution would be to download the patchers or crackers but since many of those are built using pre-made small assembly or C modular code (not shared libraries or DLLs) that has also be used by virus makers many of these legitimate pieces of modular code have been flagged by anti-virus companies as viruses just because they were used to make them. This is why your keygen, patcher, cracker executable will end up flagging anti-virus warnings immediately on download or usage or even months or years after you've successfully used them without getting an infection since their modules were flagged later. So GCW has a hard time with false-positive virus warnings and that's why they show that web page on download about their code being 100% clean and still allow download of full executables instead of just the patchers.
Learned something new today... (Score:2)
And that's one more question I'll need to ask prospective hardware suppliers: Is any proprietary software required in order to use your hardware and, if so, is it only available and usable if we keep up an annual support contract? (Related question: Is a dongle required? There is? Well... just look at the time! Have a nice day.)
I could see this for large software packages (think RDBMS and other "enterprise"-level software) where one might need to keep a support contract in place in order to gain acces
Re: (Score:2)
At least as applies to simply using the protected work.
I wouldn't be shocked if it reaches the Supreme Court and they uphold the ruling in the most narrow manner possible, leaving fair use copying uncovered while permitting simple use and viewing.
That doesn't necessarily mean the Court says fair use shouldn't be covered, just that it was not explicitly part of the original case so it does not get answered in their ruling.
Re:Does this apply to everything? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought courts have already ruled that a program residing in memory is a copy, and therefore making that copy without the dongle (which implies limited consent to making said copy in memory) is a violation of copyright. I wouldn't be surprised to see this reversed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the PsyStar vs. Apple case, I believe it was ruled that Apple could not claim copyright infringement on the copies of Mac OS loaded into RAM when each of the computers booted.
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge, in the US it was found that a copy of any media held in volatile memory in order to allow usage was considered to be fair use and not a copyright violation.
Honestly, would any other finding even make sense? (Not that I'm implying that judges always make sensible decisions).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and more recently
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc. No. 06-2555, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988, 2008 WL 2757357 (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2008)
Re:Does this apply to everything? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, backing up involves copying, and hence violates copyright.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
-- 17 U.S.C. 117
For whatever reason, however, this only applies to computer programs. Presumably because other media weren't so easy to copy back when this part of the code was last modified in 1980.
Rob
Re:Does this apply to everything? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder, given that DVD menus are effectively a simple bytecode run in an interpretor that results in the playing of video (possibly with additional video and audio overlays) that the DVD as a whole can be taken to be a computer program and it's essential associated data files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Blizzard argue that loading a game into memory to play is a copy? And then altering it in memory would be a DMCA violation. In order to play a video thats encrypted, you must work on the data, and thus to do so must make a copy of the data off the disk.
Now IMO this 'copying' argument when used this way is retarded... but clearly IANAL
Re:Does this apply to everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that copyright is unnatural, and absolutely ridiculous. The only reason for copyright is controlling thought, and profiting excessively from created content. Their orwellian attempt at controlling information allows us to imagine all kinds of ridiculous circumstances.
Example:
If I legally play a movie at my house, but I happen to have a legal surveillance camera in there, and as part of the image my camera is recording, it records the surface of the TV, is that security footage illegal, does it constitute copyright infringement?
If I legally download a movie,let's say, from itunes, and I don't actively share it, but I have my machine connected to the internet, and my hard drive is shared through samba, unsecured, to the whole internet. If someone connects to that samba share, and then copies the movie, is that my fault? Is it my duty too to protect the media I have from being copied? To what extent?
If the photons that my LCD is emitting when I'm watching a move leave my house, am I broadcasting the movie, therefore, infringing copyright? Up to what point am I supposed to protect that movie from being copied? Is closing the curtains enough, or since energy can't be destroyed, only transformed, I am legally obliged to control the energy emanating from my LCD forever?
If I legally store a legally downloaded movie on my hard drive, and then, due to a vulnerability in my operating system, that information is leaked, and every single human being on the world downloads a copy, is it my fault or the fault of the developers of my OS?
Copyright is ridiculous and unnatural, and all attempts to control information are equally stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For example, if it rains, and the rain freezes to my walkway, and I don't clear it off or post a sign, and somebody walks up to my door but slips and severely injures themself, am I liable? (yes!)
Re:Does this apply to everything? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, backing up involves copying, and hence violates copyright. It does mean though that things like VLC can get on with playing DVDs/Blurry disks.
Note that copying a DVD is entirely trivial, and unencumbered by any protection at all. CSS is purely a "use-protection" mechanism (which is why it was always so violently wrong for the DMCA to apply to it -- copyright law was supposed to govern copying and distribution, not use.)
So IMHO, not being AL, this ruling does appear to argue against the DMCA's ability to regulate DeCSS cracking. I expect it will be promptly overturned at the next level of appeals, because after all we can't allow copyright law to work for both the producer and consumer, can we?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have $782 Billion in assets, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The software owner was GE. They bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, it doesn't mean that "anyone is free to use this", it just means that its not a violation of the DMCA.
That it doesn't violate the DMCA doesn't mean that it could not be a violation of some other legal restriction (such as th
Re: (Score:2)
What this would appear to mean is that any use of a dongle by a program for licensing is now null and void. If a "remover" tool is available to eliminate the need for the dongle, then anyone is free to use this.
Not quite. If the software was obtained by means of a legally binding _contract_ with the original manufacturer, the "license" (contract) terms still apply. What this decision says is that the DMCA does not apply to an end user unless the user is circumventing a technological protection measure for