Slashdot Mirror
Toner Cartridges new DMCA victim
anarkhos writes "Lexmark leads the curve by being the first to invoke the DMCA to prevent 3rd parties from making Lexmark-compatible toner cartridges." It's gonna get worse before it gets better. Update: 01/12 14:13 GMT by J : Yep, it's a
dupe;
see
here
and here
for more info; for more on the DMCA, see
our next story
;)
Morning CT, this is a duplicate story. =)
Location: Mt. Xinu
other story here: lexmark sues
The next thing you know, you won't be able to use non-Ford and non-Toyota gas with Ford and Toyota cars respectively.
Now I can't legally print the memo on my Lexmark to warn employees to not use 3rd-party cartridges.
Micheal sues Taco under the dmca for dupilicating his stories.
I *assume* there are readers who don't check out Slashdot at least daily.
If so, it makes sense to repost stories of major significance.
Think of Slashdot like a soap opera. Major plot twists need to be repeated for the benefit of sporadic listeners.
I have an Epson inkjet printer, which has chipped cartridges. I have a little white box which I press up against the chip, and it changes it back to "full".
I wonder if this would also be considered "circumventing a media protection technology"?
"Static Control Components" buckled under the threat, and agreed to stop making the chips.
Story here
Looks like Lexmark won round one. I hope they don't get too much further.
At any rate, this is just *another* example of how stupid the DMCA is and how it's being used way out of its scope.
How many more examples do we need? Geez..
I, on the other hand, was bored enough to read this article here a few days back. Perhaps I should aspire to have a life the way you seem to.
While I have you attention, I wish there was some way to encourage people to post smart things to older articles. There was an article about DNS a day ago; alas, I did not have time when the article was posted to post anything more than a single rant; I now have finally gotten enough time together to write a number of actually useful postings; which, because of my timing, will not get read.
This is what I prefer about Usenet; if someone has something worth saying, but it takes them a week to say it, what they say will have an audience. Slashdot, on the other hand, has a 1-2 hour time frame for someone to post an comment on a given topic before it goes off the front page.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Ford is offering up to two years worth of petrol (gas) when you buy a new car here. I think its 1200 maximum over 24 months.
The catch? They give you a card you can use like a credit card at only one type of gas stations (total-fina-elf associates), and each time you fill your car, you have to enter the odometer reading on the keypad. If you put another brand of petrol in, then you lose the remainder of your free petrol because they can detect you suddenly got a large increase in kilometrage between fillups.
Its the same as a rebate, but tied into making you a habitual customer of their partner gasoline company.
When you sign up for the free petrol offer, you agree they can share the data with their "business partners". They are approaching other companies offering detailed marketing data on buyers, on things like geographic usage (people who drove to the south of spain 3 times this year, etc). They can also track the consumption of petrol quite accurately over a large sampling of their vehicles, which probably gives their engineers more data on fuel efficiency as motors wear over the first two years.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
The European Union is making guidelines which will force manufacturers like HP and Epson to make their cartridges refillable and adjustable by 3rd parties, for anti-monopoly reasons.
I don't know anything about European copyright acts, but it would seem, this doesn't go well with a, above mentioned, DMCA like law. Anybody got any insights on this?
The real problems with the DMCA are the sections which prevent circumvention of devices (or methods, etc.) which control access to a work. This effectively gives copyright holders a new right, the right to restrict access. This is not among the rights granted by the copyright statute (right to copy, distribute, perform, etc.) These sections, in reality, mean that the copyright holder can prohibit you from accessing their works, even after you have purchased a legitimate copy, as exemplified by the DeCSS case. It is quite possible that being able to restrict access to a work contradicts the purpose of copyright as stated in the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts." If access restrictions are contrary to this constitutional policy, they may very well be unconstitutional. And this is the perfect case to illustrate that.
Lexmark is claiming that these replacement cartridges allow access to some code which resides on boards within the printer and not on the cartridges themselves. This is the focus of their circumvention argument (they also argue that these cartridges contain actual copies of other code, but that is purely a traditional copyright problem). Thus, Lexmark is claiming that even though you bought their printer, you don't have the right to access their code unless you're using their cartridges. This is not a case where Lexmark is worried about copying or piracy. The 2600 case involved both access and copying (sort of) but the court was too stupid to look past the piracy rants of the MPAA and see the problems with the access restrictions. Here, we have a perfect case to illustrate why the entire access control section of the DMCA should be declared unconstitutional, without worrying about claims that piracy of digital works will cause the downfall of western civilization.
Of course, even if the access control sections were removed, copyright holders could still create hybrid control systems which prohibit both access and copying. These could then still be enforced under the anti-copying provisions. But, we can save that fight for after a court has noticed the distinction between access controls and copy controls. Then we might have a chance to win.
Thanks to Lexmark for bringing a perfect case for those of us who want to see the DMCA destroyed! (By the way, IANAL in the technical sense, but I do have a law degree in addition to a computer science degree.)
-Tim Watson
You might want to read this article
Phoenix renders pages twice as fast as IE. And Mozilla is NOT an end-user browser. It's a technology preview which shows off XUL and bunch of other shit, which makes fast applications possible (such as Phoenix).
So there.
Answer: Because the printer's cheaper than the alternatives.
If Ford were to release a car that ran on Ford fuel only, but it cost $1000 for the car, which was comfortable, speedy, and safe, do you think they'd be completely unsuccessful?
Ford would, of course, need to make it easy to obtain "Ford" fuel, and it's the logistics of this that makes it difficult at this point for Ford to go ahead with such a scheme. But I don't think the scenario is as unlikely as you suggest, especially if Ford could find some way of packaging up 20 gasoline-gallons worth of energy into a brick sized unit that could be sent in the mail.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
we need to throw Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen into a volcano?
I'm all for that!
business models remain effective, and profits guaranteed.
They paid good money to get their self-serving laws (e.g. the DMCA) passed, so of course they expect a return on their investment. This is the sort of thing that should be expected when money becomes more important than votes in politics.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Warning: Rant Follows, Sorry in advance:
I am absolutely SICK AND TIRED of buying a printer for, say $99.00 and having to pay $33.95 for a tank of color and $29.95 for a tank of black. (Stuff the comments about "that's just the business model" -- company store scams aren't a business model, they are a racket) Just make the damn cartridges refillable already.
As far as toners and laser printer parts that have predefined failure points, it's a total rip off. Why can't the printer business just make the best damn printer they can, and sell me on quality and the economy of operating their stuff. I don't care about how hi-tech your cartridges are. I don't even care that by replacing my printhead with the cartridge, I get optimum print quality. I want to replace the print head WHEN IT WEARS OUT. I don't want to buy a $250 developer unit when the one I had worked fine on page 10,499 and the engine clicks over to 10,500 pages. I want to replace "consumable" and worn out parts when they are expended!
Finally, $30 for 2.8ML of black ink is a rip off. I can get a gallon of ink for $5.00. Toner - my god that stuff is cheap when bulk packaged outside the combo drum/developer cartridge.
Lexmark: drop the lawsuit. I know you all just want to rip your captive customers off, but can't you figure out how to make money by say MAKING A BETTER PRINTER!????
BTW: I have a Lexmark inkjet. Great print quality BUT it costs $.33/page because the cartridges cost $60 and last 200 pages. My favorite feature is the "clean the printhead" option... It never fails to take 10-20 pages of life out of a cartridge and it NEVER works the first time I use it, forcing me to run the self-clean again and waste another 20 pages of ink!
I want a decent color printer that I can print for $.10 per page. And no chips, counters or hermetically sealed, kevlar-armored, heat treated steel covered unrefillable cartridges!
-- $G
This is semi-offtopic, it has nothing to do with Lexmark. Lexmark is flat out crap, I wouldn't give a Lexmark printer to my worst enemy.
:-).
It sucks to see that printer manufacturers are stooping to this level. I have to maintain something on the order of 50 HP laserjet printers (I won't count the deskjets, maybe 100?). People don't like paying $80 for an HP toner cartridge when they can get a recycled HP for $40 or an off brand for $30. HP has nothing to worry about.. EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS.
Most people opt for the $40 recycled cartridge. It's an HP cartridge that's been cleaned and refilled. Most of the time these things leak toner, occasionally requiring printer cleaning. When the users get the bill for printer cleaning, they see why I tell them to only buy the real thing.
Generic cartridges are even worse. At least with the recycled there's a warranty on them, if you get them in a shoddy condition you can usually send them back. I've used 4 different flavors of generic cartridge. Most of them either leak toner (accompanied by a cleaning bill sometimes) or in some cases just break apart. I had a user who went through 3 cartridges in one day, she'd print about 200 sheets and then the printer would start making a crunching sound and little plastic pieces would start flying out. Yup, toner cartridge broke apart. No warranty. You're out $30x3 because you went with a non-HP toner. Do the math, it's a bad deal all the way around.
I say go ahead and use your el-cheapo cartridges, you'll get what you paid for
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq