Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Invoked Against Garage Door Openers
boijames writes "In the latest bit of DMCA lunacy, copyright guru David Nimmer turned me
onto a case that his firm is defending, where a garage door opener
company (The Chamberlain Group) has leveled a DMCA claim (among other
claims) against the maker of universal garage door remotes (Skylink)."
So, when does the court case open?
It's an open and shut case.
Boom boom
Learn to Improvise
the DCMA should be invoke against as much ridiculus things as possible.
that way maybe legislators and voters will see the lunacy in all its perverted glory.
in Soviet Russia the DCMA invokes YOU.
The sillier the lawsuits are, the faster the public (& politicians) will see the law needs revision.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
They fight against US laws restricting freedom of speech...
Oh how the tables have turned
If universal tv remote manufacturers are next on the list to be hit by the DMCA
Then again, i dont think you can make a universal key, so someone must have been doing some bad thinking if they designed garage door remotes like this.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Well I guess Universal remotes are next. So when are the retards in DC going to wake up. That should be the next poll.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
..ass bigntime. What is next? Universal TV remotes? I recently had the misfortune that a child (Somebody elses btw) broke my TV remote After trying for ages to get a new remote out of the manufacturer, they finally sent me to his subcontratctor who sent me still somewhere else with the general result that I did not get an autheintic brand remote with all the channel setting features. So I bought a Universal one which after a bit of hacking turned out to have all the features of the old one. If this suit is won We will have a nice Kafaesqe situation where you cant get a replacement remote or at best can only buy a universal one at hugely inflated prices.
/. defending the righ of big buisinesses to screw us consumers over with DMCA they will probably suceed.
With all the voices here on
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
1. Amount Cornell University Library pays for subscription to "Journal of Applied Polymer Science": $12,495.00
2. Amount charged to University Libraries for subscription to "Journal of Economic Studies": $13.40/page
3. Number of people who find the $13.40 per page ironic: 3 out of 4
4. Number of Project Gutenberg Etexts converted by voluteers: 3,551
5. Current "Cost" per Etext based on 3,481 texts: $2.87 per text
6. Number of Scientists worldwide boycotting Corporate Science Journals beginning September 2001: 26,000
7. Number of college and research institutions "Declaring Independence" by publishing themselves: 200
8. Number of days DMCA arrestee Dmitry Sklyarov spent in jail: 13
9. Number of jails he spent them in: 4
10. Amount charged to taxpayers for those 13 days: $4,000
11. Window of time Microsoft and the American Association of Publishers (AAP) can engage in
their cooperative Internet surveillance program: 24x7x365
12. Number of AAP members who apparently support the Internet surveillance program: 250
13. Number of "companies" which control the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA): 4
14. Number of Executive Directors who appear to control the DVD Copy Control Association: 1
15. Amount one company charges for eBook encryption security: $3,000
16. Number of letters one must rotate the alphabet to decrypt that book: 13 (ROT-13)
17. Amount recovered in recent "software raid" conducted by BSA.org against Minneapolis Company: $260,000
18. Number of disgruntled employees who may report you to the BSA resulting in a "software raid.": 1
19. Number of Irish software companies currently being sued by BSA.org: 7
20. Companies BSA represents in those cases: Adobe, Autodesk, Macromedia, Microsoft and Symantec
21. Number of cities included in July 2001 BSA "Truce" Campaign: 5
22. Number of states which experienced Raids conducted by FBI on July 24 commended by BSA: 9
23. Number of proported jobs lost from software piracy in study conducted by BSA.org: 109,000
24. Amount an eBook customer may be fined for a backup not permited by the Publisher: $250,000
25. Amount of time that customer might spend in jail: 5 years
26. Number of restrictions placed on "Alice in Wonderland" (public domain) eBook: 5
27. Maximum penalty for reading "Alice in Wonderland" aloud (possible DMCA violation): 5 years jail
28. Maximum penalty for having a "pirate" copy of "Planet of the Apes": 10 years jail/$2M fine
29. Average sentence for commiting Rape: 5 years
30. Yet another Slashdot editor Hell-bent on a crusade against laws that don't have anything to do with them -- Priceless
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
You can't have it both ways.
Unless I'm really dense, the whole point of Rolling Codes is that there is an algorithm shared by the remote and opener that defines previously-used codes as invalid, so that a burglar who sniffs the code you use to open the garage today can't come back and use that code tomorrow. In that case, these devices should not be working, which should be grounds for the consumers to file a class-action, but it would be proof that they are NOT violating the patent on the Rolling Codes.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
"The DMCA is a law, and as faithful American citizens, it's our duty to obide by it and cherish it, as all laws must be cherished." I don't completely agree with you on this point. It is also the duty of the citizens of this pseudo-democracy to hold officials etc. responsible for the laws to make, it is supposed to be the will of the people isn't it? For example if for some bizarre reason a law was passed requiring you to cut off your big toes for the government would you? There comes a point when laws and regulations go too far, in other places and other times too many controlling laws (among other things of course) of been cause for revolution. Obviously the U.S. is nowhere near that point but the reasoning is the same. Just because the law is made we don't have to blindly believe it is for the best of everyone, don't let the lawmakers decide for you, decide for yourself.
i actually read(well, skimmed) the summary judgement paper for the case. the device does circumvent an encryption based routine. the intent of the original manufacturers was to keep criminals from "sniffing" the transmissions, and therefore to keep them from breaking into your garage and stealing your pinto. it's a good thing. making a device that allows anyone to come up to YOUR garage and open it is bad. and although i am against the DMCA, this case will be pretty simple as far as the letter of the law is concerned.
this would be like having a key that doesn't need to fit your actual lock. i doubt anyone would HONESTLY want the general public to have this.
i feel so dirty for agreeing with the prosecutors...so so dirty.
The recent rash of DMCA cases have involved actions taken before the statute was in place. I mean, before too long tech companies could start suing each other claiming one company's processor is a copyright infringement on another. I guess the next thing on the list is el-cheapo TV remotes being removed from the market.
This is steadily going beyond ridiculous, making our country an even larger laughing stock.
-'fester
For crying out loud, the general public had seen this coming from the very first day the DMCA was introduced. Now do you think that the people who supported it will just turn around and abolish this law ? They have their positions to justify now... And while they're in power they will... 'nuff said.
bringing us entertaining lawsuits since 1998.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
On the grounds that Fucking Stupidity has been around for ages, and the DMCA fuckwits are ripping it off??
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
--
"Observation collapsed the wave function of the experimental subject to a deceased state" - Schroedinger
If the lawsuit is seen to be silly, it'll be tossed out, but people will say, "See, the system of checks and balances did the job. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater -- it's still a good law."
There are too many powerful groups with a vested interest to let this go by the way. Minor revisions, perhaps, but it's not going to create a huge ruckus or make any major difference to the law. Even if this particular case gains some notoriety, it'll be forgotten in a month and the vested interest groups will have won. Again.
Not that I'm jaded or cynical or anything.
Banning universal TV remote controls? (TV manufacturers "protecting" communication between remote and TV)
How about computer peripherals? (No, you'll have to use a GreedyCorp(R) keyboard with that GreedyCorp(R) computer. And don't you try to circumvent the "protection" mechanism!)
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
But leave it to some company who wants all the pie to nail down all the loose ends and give the consumer less innovation
I meant to write "you can't just park a van"
I was able to find a website for The Chamberlain Group (the garage door manufacturer). Skylink (the remote manufacturer) also has a web site. Neither appears to have any information about the lawsuit.
I called Chamberlain's tech support number and got the number for their corporate offices: 1-800-282-6225. They said to ask for the legal depatment. If somebody with better journalism skills than I would like to follow up and ask all the questions that people have raised here, we would all appretiate you.
This is only really useful now because there was no real legal teeth for this sort of thing in copyright law until the DMCA. It specifically references technological issues, it is vague as to what it covers, and it carries criminal penelties.
Look for more patent style/interoperability contests to be faught through the DMCA.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I can use my palm pilot as a TV remote, is this illegial too now? The DMCA is getting a little ridiculous. Next thing you know, we will sign an EULA when we buy a TV or garage door opener. I don't think we can stand for this, somthing needs to be done to overthrow the DMCA, it is getting worse and worse over time. I can understand (not agree with though) why microsoft would want copy protection on the XBox, but now garage door openers? Somthing needs to be done.
Not to be overly optimistic here, but I think this case could show just how bad the DMCA really is to Joe Public. It is not being used as intended (Take my copyrighted material off your website now! or Your taking my crapy "digital protection" off my copyrighted work, stop it!), but instead it is being used as a bully tactic. Right or wrong the copyright holder should be able to protect what he thinks are his works, but with the DMCA he has been given a club that is far to large.
Just being a little less optimistic, my bet is that one of the following happens:
But what I would like to see happen is that they loose a battle with the DMCA and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. (Where in a 7 to 2 decision they decide that the Congress can extend copyrights indefinitly because that is a limited ammount of time - oh what wrong thread.)
I just seems like nobody wants to test this new law, but everybody wants to use it like the club it was designed to be. Somebody need to fight this thing in court, but that will take years and lots of cash.
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
Go read the pdf...
they want a permanent injunction
they want all profits from Skylink's device
they want to impound all Skylink's stuff
they then want to destroy all of Skylinks stuff
they want treble damages
they want attorney's fees
but my favorite phrase is the "trafficking in a device that is designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the technological measure" (referring to their rolling code tech).
Cmon, ya jokers... It's a freakin' garage door opener, not an eight-ball of heroin...
Sheesh...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
What did they do, lose the REAL garage door opener in the couch?
I mean, really - LOOK IN YOUR CAR.Or was it that lugging around all the remotes for the ever present seven car garage was getting tiresome?
Just another reason DCMA should repealled, scraped, shot to death, buried in 100 tons of concrete and dropped into the ocean.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Just don't open a Garage door with those weapons, or you'll get sued.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
After reading the motion for summary judgement, what it looks like to me is this:
The manufacturer effectively implemented a OTP (one-time password) scheme in their remotes and receivers.
As anyone who has used OTPs knows, you have to know which password comes next in the sequence to get in.
Because the manufacturer couldn't think of a good way to get around this problem, they made the receiver accept a reset code that forces it to resync on the next code received.
Now they're bitching because someone else figured this out and using the reset code to allow their third-party remotes to activate the receiver.
There's a lot of bullshit about burglars and stuff, but what it basically comes down to is they thought up a great new security scheme, and then drove a ten-ton truck through it in the name of convenience. Tough shit for them, I say.
It is fun to criticize silly cases like this however we need more of them! Cases like these are much more likely to result in rulings against the DMCA. I suppose for most judges it is easier to visualize a garage door opener then a complex software proggie.
Isn't it ridiculous how people can have lethal chemicals, like Dihydrogen Monoxide, and yet the DMCA is around?
Dihydrogen Monoxide kills more people per year than any other chemical.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
What happens then if you lose your remote, and you can't get a replacement except by mail from the manufacturer? And if you open the door manually, circumventing the (now lost) encrypted remote, are you violating the DMCA?
Will this mean more highly encrypted garage door systems won't be able to be exported? After all, we wouldn't want terrorists and rogue nations to be able to protect their SUVs from the prying eyes of espionage!
since when does the general public know what the DMCA is or that it even exists? The "general public" I know has never heard of it.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Then, I build a little device out of the parts consisting of the "black box" with two buttons and two lights. When you press one button, one light comes on. When you press two, two lights come on and there's sound.
Now, since this is technically a digital device, if I throw a price tag on it is it illegal for any one to come by and open it up?
Where is Home Depot and Lowes?
Why aren't they also listed as defandants?
Afterall they are selling or offering to sell the device.
...where will this leave people who own automobiles with an integrated universal garage door opener I wonder?
unsigned int question = 0x2B | ~(0x2B)
That always confused me on Stargate - what the hell did GDO stand for? Now it all makes sense.
I'm calling upon the Swiss under the Geneva Convention to investegate Chamberlain.
They've taken logic and common sense and tortured them beyond all recognition. They claim the rolling code (which is used in ever modern garage door opener) is a form of encryption that protects the computer program that enables the garage door to go up and down. At this point, logic is tied down on a wooden table and they're shoving bamboo shoots under logic's fingernails.
This is not a DMCA matter; its simply a matter of a far east competitor coming up with a cheaper universal remote control; they've lost the Lowe account and the Home Depot account is threatened.
If judge doesn't throw this out, then he/she is an utter moron.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I'm not questioning the right to have guns. I'm all for guns in responsible hands. I'm not for ridiculous legislation and abuse of it.
;)
I was using the comparison to illustrate how jilted the situation is with the DMCA. Someone seems to think I was offtopic... so mod me down then
.: Max Romantschuk
I skimmed the brief, and the DMCA claim seemed to boil down to this:
Plaintiff makes a garage door opener that is keyed to Plaintiff's remote. Defendent creates garage remote capable of being keyed to many different garage door openers, including Plaintiff's. Purpose of garage doors is to secure property inside garage. Therefore Plaintiff's device is an anti-piracy (as in nautical theft) device, which is "circumvented" by an "unauthorized" (third-party) key (remote control).
This seems analagous to a lock company suing a locksmith for duplicating keys (assuming these keys don't say "do not duplicate" on them), since the company made the locks and keys to go with them, making the existence of a key not made by the lock company a circumvention device.
I wonder how long before we see such a suit filed?
Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
Sadly, I think the only thing going through Congressmen's minds when they pass laws is somthing along the lines of:
Yes, I am an American, and proud to say so. But, I am also embarassed by so many of our politicians, or should I say, our corporate-controlled politicians. Sad but true, Corporate America is the aristocracy of the new world.
I went through years of school where I was taught that we fought for independence from Great Britain because of taxation without representation and a lack of other such basic freedoms.
And now we're faced with pretty much the same thing. Sure, we elect politicians. But the corporations pay for their campaigns, shower them with "perks" (aka: legal bribes), and tell them how to vote. Sure, frivolous claims such as this garage door crap is going to make people realize the DMCA is stupid. But it's most likely corporations, rather than constituents, will control how the DMCA is modified.
I can actually start Simcity 4 with my original Battlefield 1942 CD. :=)
It even shows a nice Battlefield 1924 logo when starting simcity 4.
I'm not lying
So is my bought battefield 1942 cd a circumvention device?
And can EA sue EA for making a curcumvention device that breaks EA's copy protection?
still reading?
Easy. They're going after the manufacturer because they haven't the funds to sue Lowe's, Home Depot, Furrow's, etc.
If they win, I assue you that the products will be pulled fom the shelf by each location for fear of being targeted in a lawsuit.
All this will do is force us to buy openers from the manufacturer. Have you ever priced a remote for a Chamberlain garage door opener? They're something like $30.
Seems to me that the DMCA is being used to recoup profits for companies that have a seriously flawed business model or are generally greedy.
I can't wait for the backlash. It may take several more lawsuits and all the after-market stuff drying up before Joe Q. Public wakes up and sees how screwed we really are.
What's next? I'm going to be forced to buy only Genuine Dodge parts for my 2002 Durango? You mean I have to pay [insert insanely bloated OEM price here] for brake pads when I could've got after-markets for 1/2 that? I can only use Geniune Dodge oil and air filters (the latter of which is $30) when I could've gotten a FRAM filter for $9 at WalMart?
If thats going to be the case, I'll pay someone to total it and buy a 20 year old car that is
1. Easier to repair
2. Has a plethora of universal parts available
3. Gets really shitty gas mileage in order to thumb my nose at the tree-huggers
4. Is made of Pittsburgh steel and not fiberglass and tinfoil
5. Is so old that no one in their right mind would want to steal it or cut me off in traffic for fear of having me in their back seat
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
It all comes down to profit, doing a quick search the average cost of the company bring the suit is $35US. However for the same functionality and size you can purchase one from Skylink for under $20US.
I'll leave the outrage at the stupid use of a stupid law to other posters.
:(
The summary judgment motion is the more interesting document, which (partially) describes how the technology works.
What it doesn't say is how Chamberlain's (the plaintiff) remote control resynchronises with the receiver. This is interesting, since it's this resynchronisation that Skylink's (the defendant) remote control uses to trigger Chamberlain's receiver. By doing so, Skylink circumvent the rolling-code mechanism that's supposed to protect the Chamberlain device from code-grabbers.
I wonder how Skylink have done this - does their remote control learn how to resynchronise from an original remote control? Have they also needed to crack Chamberlain's code to be able to do this? If so, that's a second circumvention, isn't it?
Lastly, you have to wonder how buggy/weak Chamberlain's code/system is if it can be so easily circumvented. But I guess that's not relevant under the DMCA.
(IANAL)
(Anyone got a Skylink RC? Can you comment on the process of teaching it to open your door?)
act puzzled when people place them among the world's most utterly despised professions.
Notice to lawyers: start policing your own profession or you'll NEVER shed your image problem. At least doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. When they act in a dishonorable or unscruplous manner, they catch hell for it--from their own. You guys need to start doing something like this.
So...it's wintertime; when does lawyer hunting season begin? We seem to hunt every other thing here in PA...and the deer aren't going out of their way to make life harder >:)
I had a new controller coming up...
So, I guess its back to "Open, Sesame" now.
Bad laws are just that, bad laws. I don't disagree with all of the intentions of the DMCA, I mean protecting copyright is important. But bad laws can be made to protect good things. This is one of those cases. The only remedy for this, is to revoke the bad laws, and create new, good laws.
You evil remote-controlled garage door hackers you!
All of you should be strung up, you're wrecking this great country and letting the terrorists win.
(humor, sarcasm, or something close to that)
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
The plaintiff is claiming that the DCMA has been violated because the device is circumventing security.
It is.
However, this is closing the door after the horse has bolted and the plaintiff should be facing a class action for claiming that something is secure despite having a massive loophole that allows someone to force the door to open without the right, programmed remote control!
The DCMA is being used to try to get these things off the market because of the stupidity of the manufacturers in creating a basically insecure device and marketing it as secure.
The manufacturers shoudl be strung up - this stinks...
...Interoperability?
Or if you broke the one that came with the system or you have multiple cars.
Also price wise the non-manufacters remotes are cheaper then the "official" remotes.
But surely the point is that 'Joe Public' will never see or hear about this case. Us on /. are aware of it, but let's face it, we're not exactly 'Joe Public'.
JP only notices things that are on national media (if they even watch the news), so unless this becomes the story of the day, they will never hear about it.
As far as Congress (and the corporations) are concerned, ignorance is wonderful, and to be exploited as far as possible.
I don't have a garage, you insensitive clod!
No, and that's a silly analogy with no application to the topic.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I own a garage. It has a door.
I own an opener for that door. I even own the remote.
By, "I own", I mean it's my property -- it's not like I'm in some strange "leasing" arrangement, where, say, I need to ask permission from the last person who owned the garage door if it's OK now to open it on up.
See, it's mine. I can do with it what I want. If the guy who sold me the door says I can't do what I want with it, I say, he shouldn't have taken my credit card. It's not his property anymore, it's mine.
And if he says the door was his idea, his "intellectual property", I'll kindly point out that, er, that's nice, see that door? It's my door. Not your door. My door. My very nice door, sure -- great ideas behind it, I don't usually buy products with crappy ideas behind them. I think the goodness of the idea was inherent in me providing that money the guy so happily accepted.
So, er, bugger off.
Ah, now it comes time to paint the door. Excuse me. Paint *my* door. What the hell? There's some "anti-stick" teflon coating on my door?
It's illegal for me to remove this stuff? Isn't it mine?
I'm supposed to buy a new door, whole new color? But I already own a door, and the paint on that door. Isn't it all mine?
If I remove the surface, I go to jail?
If someone removes *my* Teflon (I may not want it, but I sure got it -- sort of like excessive packaging) and paint *my* door the color *I* want it, *I've* got a cellmate?
Now how exactly is this door mine?
And if I don't really own the door, do they really own the money I paid for it with?
I bet if I move, I have to burn the door down and leave the next owner to buy one of their own...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
What does this tell of the lifestyle of /.-ers? :-)
:-)
.....
..ass bigntime. What is next? Universal TV remotes?
Hmm... Anyway, I think I got the message, thanks for your comparisons.
I wouldn't be surprised...
If universal tv remote manufacturers are next on the list to be hit by the DMCA
Universal Remotes
Well I guess Universal remotes are next.
This sux
Is the DMCA retroactive?
-snip- I guess the next thing on the list is el-cheapo TV remotes being removed from the market
What's next?
Banning universal TV remote controls?
Does this make my palm pilot illegial?
I can use my palm pilot as a TV remote, is this illegial too now?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That "rolling code" scheme they use in the transmitters/recievers is amazingly primitive... That they got a patent on something as simple-minded as that is rediculous.
I drive an Acura TL. The car comes with a built-in garage door opener. You activate your opener and the car "learns" the code. Sound like a universal remote to me...in fact, it can learn ANY code (such as remote lights).
So is he going to sue the Honda Motor Corporation (parent company of Acura)?
My sister bought one of those new Volvo station wagons, on it's driver side visor it has a universal garage door opener built in. So will the Chamberlin Group go after Volvo for having these installed? I hope so cause Volvo has the hard cash to take these guys on.
Did you read the pleading by Chamberlain? Its very informative.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Maybe a few liberal gun-grabbing types will be mugged in their driveway.
We need to get those dangerous garage door openers off the street!
Think of the children!
And don't forget about IBM and their Universal Bussiness Adapter.
Isn't that essentially a consequence of a ruling against Skylink?
There are few things I hate more than the DMCA.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
This is absolutely hilarious. They say they spent tons of money building this Rolling Code system, and that homeowners absolutely depend on its security. Yet they conveniently included a backdoor so that the same code will work over and over. But it's a 'synchronization code' so it's not a security hole in their system.
Their implementation is horrendous and practically invites this. If they wanted a secure sytem, the remote could query the opener for a current timestamp, and then it could use that timestamp to generate an appropriate code and send it. To make the code specific to one door, you could enter the serial number of the opener into the remote as a seed for whatever code generating algorithm it uses, just program it once when you first buy it. You can obviously only see the serial number if you're inside the house so that should be pretty secure. It sound like they just have a list of 1000 codes and they go through it in order, which is why they need the synchronization code, in case you hit the button when you're out of range of the door and your remote is on 48 while the opener is on 46.
I especially liked the verbal chicanery, where they use circumvent to mean 'got the door to open' rather than to mean 'break into the list of codes'. If the competing universal remote actually broke into the list of codes (which was encoded or protected somehow) then they may have broken the DMCA, but it seems like they just experimented with sending signals and found one that always opened the doors, it's not even reverse engineering, just discovering an undocumented API. Is a list of numbers even copyrightable? I wouldn't think so.....
I would bet that there are plenty of US citizens or residents who frequent this site as well. You are in India and are free eh? Well feel free to ignore articles that you don't care about. It shouldn't be too tough for you. Just scroll right by. Why doesn't it suprise me that you posted this flaming troll shit as an anonymous coward?
I wonder....what if the DMCA had existed in the 80's...could IBM have successfully sued compaq for backward engineering the PC's ROM? Could Apple have stoped microsoft from releasing windows? we might live in a vastly different world. Clones would never have been made...maybe Amiga, Atari and TI would still be making microcomputers!
And what does this mean for my darth maul tie-fighter univeral TV remote?
It's almost like all these lame DMCA lawsuits (which mostly are garbage claims) are being filed on purpose in order to get the law reviewed. ...almost like the lawyers realise that the law, as it now stands, is ripe for abuse (shock and horror! Isn't that what people said before now?) and it needs to be either revised to eliminated all-together.
I vote, the latter.
when I suggested this law might be used against a social engineer. I think companies are looking for ANY way to protect thier cash cows or to even make ANYTHING a cash cow.
I can't wait until going through my office door right behind someone is an offense - since I didn't use my badge.
-------------------
"Don't let what you can't do stop you from what you can do." - unknown
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
but I think this case could show just how bad the DMCA really is to Joe Public
Well this may be a bad example since the defendant is selling a device to circumvent security measures designed for Joe Publics house. I think in this case the DMCA actually works in Joe Publics favor, since by giving Chamberlin an avenue to persue this action, it brings it into the "publics" eye. If they had to recourse, then they might have just simply said nothing and Joe Public would be unaware that that "secure" GDO they just purchased really isn't as secure as thought.
You don't need to sit there in the street and try the combinations
it's not random burglars that would get the most criminal use
buy one of these, mod it to auto-brute force your neighbours garage
131072 is not a lot of combinations.
1 attempt every minute would take 91 hours.
Of course, being a nieghbour gives you the opportunity to find out the manufacturer which reduces your burden to 512 combinations
On the other hand you could just get your binoculars out and look @ the manufacturers logo which will no doubt be emblazoned on your expensive garage doors.
512 - no problem. I remember @ school brute forcing a 3 digit padlock during spare time in my lunch hour over the course of a week
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
OK I'm a bit confused, eveyone is saying that this is a DMCA case, but when I read the complaint, I don't see where DMCA is explicitly mentioned. I see three patent infringement complaints and one software copyright complaint (in the original complaint). Is the software copyright complaint the DMCA part (even though it mentions the copyright act of '76, or is the entire thing wrapped up under the auspices of the DMCA because of the intent of the offending device? (i.e. circumventing security measures)
Because of the patent claims, couldn't this lawsuit have happened even with DMCA?
If the patent complaints are found valid, isn't this a valid (from a non legal standpoint) action by Chamberlin? If so, then why is eveyone bitching about DMCA?
It took this case for you to see how stupid the DMCA is?
I have a registered copyright (TXu 189-482 ganted March 11, 1985) for secure communications between computers. I wonder if my copyright is older then theirs. If so, I wonder if they are violating my copyright? Work was completed in 1984.
Surely with precedents like these, the suit will just get thrown out? I hope it costs the garage door manufacturer $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
The DMCA is a law, and as faithful American citizens, it's our duty to obide by it and cherish it, as all laws must be cherished.
Duty to obey it?... maybe. Duty to cherish it?... no way.
The First Amendment is very clear that everybody has the right to petition the government. We don't have to like the laws that are passed. Furthermore we have the right to ask our elected legislators to reverse their previous decisions. And if we really don't like our government the entire lawmaking system can be flushed out within six years or less, with a majority being overtaken in less than four years.
yeah, right
/.). When your corporate pigopolist tech employer outsources the last programming job to Bangalore, be sure to turn off the light on the way out of the building.
software sweatshop morelike (clue - he's reading
arsefucker
That was classic intercourse!
It was passed by lawyer lobbyists so companies would make frivilious lawsuits so lawyers have another channel to make plenty of money. I wish all these black hearted bastards would just die....
The conspiracy theory is the Illuminati had this bill passed to fill thier coffers for the One world Government which will come into effect 2015.
Out with the demons of stupidity......
That's why I prefer ethanol. :-)
...the Garage doors open you!
Think of all those all-in-one remotes which 'learn' the codes from the existing remotes. Surely they're breaking the DMCA.
Acciording to the founding fathers, you also have the right to own slaves. They just didn't make it explicitly clear in the constitution, although it is alluded to in the census provision. My point is that those founding fathers shouldn't be considered the epitome of wisdom applicable to all times and circumstances.
I agree with your point, however, it is clear in several of the writings of the founding fathers (this is hearsay, I haven't read the writings, someone back me up! :) ) that the reason we have the right to bear arms (doesn't say "guns", says "bear arms") is for:
1. National defense
2. National defense
Furthermore, defending this nation against invaders of any kind, be they outside invaders, or our own government, is a responsibility we each have. It is the biggest responsibility we have in exchange for our freedom, that is, we must fight for it whenever such action is needed. Defending against tyranny of all kinds is the reason we have the right to bear arms, and it doesn't matter if that tyranny is Soviet Russia or the Imperial Senate in Washington DC.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Because of the patent claims, couldn't this lawsuit have happened even with DMCA?
Of course that should have said "without the DMCA"
It seems that "circumvention" means invoking their "copyrighted" microprocessor program.
But is 'invoking' something that is copyrighted
the same as "accessing" it under the DMCA?
In this case, the remote is not providing "access" to the code: it does not copy it, emulate it or anything. The remote is just emulates their security (a patent infringment maybe) and probably sends a single command that opens the garage door. If this case succeeds then invoking API's may be a copyright violation????? Or any access to a system that is controlled by copyrighted code.
I am wondering what the difference between a system with a CPU and copyrighted code on a ROM and an equivalent circuit constructed from AND/NOT gates is? Can the latter be copyrighted as well?
Not that it matters, since a half-decent lawyer could nail the plaintiff for filing frivilous lawsuits.
After all, they teach people how to swim there. :-D
(The scary part was that I had to stare at dihydrogen monoxide for a few seconds before I translated it...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
There are a ton of messages on here saying that this points out how evil/stupid/ridiculous the DMCA is. While I'm certainly no fan of the DMCA, I think that this is not correct. All this case shows is that desperate people will try ANYTHING to get whatever personal or business dilemma they find themselves in solved. Unless/until they actually WIN the case on the basis of the DMCA, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the evilness/stupidity/ridiculousness of the DMCA.
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
Their problem may be that no one is "accessing" the so-called protected work (the software in the receiver). First, the homeowner bought a license to operate the software when he bought the garage door opener. The homeowner then buys this replacement remote and presses the button. The replacement remote operates the receiver software. It doesn't copy that software. It doesn't alter it. It doesn't display it. It merely interoperates with it. (Granted, this is not quite in the way the manufacturer intended, but that's the manufacturer's problem.)
The previous poster has a good point about the reverse engineering provision (17 USC Sec 1201(f)). That part of the DMCA says "a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent . . . 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". That seems to say that interoperating is not prohibited by the DMCA.
Another good question is whether the receiver software is a work protected by a technological measure (17 USC Sec. 1201(a)(3)(A)). After all, that software is not scrambled or encrypted. Only the signal the software processes is scrambled or encrypted. No one is trying to decode the software here.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Now I see why lawyers in the States are so expensive. I can not imagine how long a bunch of $250/hr lawyers is took to come up with GDO's. They figure that you sprinkle a document with TLA's then it must be very technical and complicated.
See Paragraph 3
Thanks for pointing that out.
Not that it matters, since a half-decent lawyer could nail the plaintiff for filing frivilous lawsuits.
So you believe that their patent infringement claims are unfounded as well?
But we likes to be silly. It makes us not have heart attacks, and women like us more.
But the problem is that this is not an issue covered by the DMCA. The DMCA prohibits circumventing security measures that limit access to copyrighted works. Joe Public's house is not a copyrighted work, it's a frickin' physical structure. Invoking the DMCA here is like suing the hardware store for copying keys, because the keys are designed to be a security measure on a house. See the problem here?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The DMCA is explicitely mentioned when they talk about circumvention devices. If you read it a little deeper you see after all of the talk about rolling codes and security they mention "oh yeah, we also built this backdoor to re-synch our wonderful remotes".
Well, the SkyLink remote uses that backdoor to get around having to reverse engineer the actual rolling code (which according to the document is previous code + 3).
So, SkyLink manages to avoid all of the copyrighted code using this backdoor, so the DMCA claim is trotted out because they're "trafficing in a circumvention device".
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
And if the original breaks? Or you want to control 2 garage doors (made by different manufacturers) from one remote?
My old garage door opener was acting irratically, and it wasn't due to low batteries. I bought a new universal remote, coded it, and now I have a 3x the usable range and can control both garage doors if I ever need to.
The remote I had was a replacement remote too. What happened to the original? Hell if I know. I'm the 4th or 5th owner of the house. One of the previous owners could've accidentilly taken it when vacating, run over it, fed it to the dog, or whatever.
And your post got modded up too... how sad.
"-1, Off-topic"??? Whoever modded this should try to cover their lobotomy scar with a nice hat.
s/house/company/g;
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
A friend of mine got his hands on the remote controller for garage doors from Canadian Tire. Every year, Canadian Tire would run sales on these products. One thing that the packaging stated was that a user could input a "secret" code for their own garage door. This consisted of 4 dip switches....
Well, a soldering iron, a simple circuit board, some coffe, and some time later, voila we had our magic door sweeper. We could drive down the streets of our hick town and open people's garage doors. What a hoot.
Well, I did qualify that it was a hick town. ;)
I stick to walls...
A possible next step in this kind of foolishness is for the manufacturer to start selling you the door but only leasing you the remote. The remote remains the property of the manufacturer. But with the DMCA already in place, why would the manufacturer bother? They'd claim to have a stronger legal case against reverese engineering of the remote. Of course it's still your door...
Campaign Finance Reform.
I don't claim this is always funny.
"+5 Funny" is inadequate for this comment. The insight contained therein is remarkable.
My hat is off to you.
Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA.
The term in mind and Congress are used in the same sentence. It implies the presence of thought, which in turn, is required to ascertain the consequences of a law like the DMCA. As we can see, this clearly did not happen.
It seems as though you're setting up a straw man, and I'm not surprised that you succeeded in knocking it down.
...but judging from their description of the cryptosystem...
...its only a half-step up from rot-13.
I'd bet dollars to dimes that the scrambling algorithm is simply an xor of the identification code and the rolling code.... That's not encryption...its a slight mathematical obfuscation.
So you're saying, these guys are so stupid, I bet their encryption sucks. Wow, that encryption really does suck! What idiots!
And if their "scrambling code" is AES, or Skipjack, or Twofish, what then? (OK, so these codes are too new, but even say DES would be much more than enough to secure a garage door opener.)
I'd say XOR is a minor fifth up from rot-13, but that's beside the point. You're right that XOR is woefully easy to crack; in this case there is an easy, short-linear-time attack if you can sniff them once.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Um, the second most important claim is that "Skylink is a foreign Corporation" just how is this relevant to anything except possible curry favour?
I hate to break it to the company that makes these things, but most theives don't have ultra high tech gadgets to get into people garages. They do it the old fashion way. Bust in the side door or window, then press the button inside. Or they break into the car (lots of times unlocked) that's sitting in the driveway and use the remote from the car.
Rolling codes just make sure that your neighbour with the same garage door system (which is everyone in surburbia) doesn't open your door when he comes home and wants to park in the garage. There are only 2 (yes, that is 2) garage door manufactures in the US, and I beleive that Chamberlain makes about 80% of the units (rebranded under other names like Sears) so there is a higher then 50% chance all your neighbors have the same/simlar units from the same manufacturer.
One interesting question is, "who owns the security code?" I would say that I own the security code, since it is protecting MY property in MY garage. Now, it might be a real DMCA case if a criminal were using one of these remote openers to try to break into my house.
Pledging allegiance to the US does not mean pledging allegiance to the US Government. As a citizen of this country, it is your patriotic DUTY to question and hold responsible your government for its actions, and make sure the government represents the will of the people. Remember, the people grant the government power, not vice versa.
slashdot!=valid HTML
Time to sell my gold for stocks until 0 changes it's value again. Usually a day to few weeks, sure it's unethical, sure it's currency trading, drawing money from the ether, and sure it passes (or rather removes) the buck to Joe Blow blue collar worker that bought good PR, but this is what's necessary.
*/sarcasism*
Healthly competition? Consumer responsiveness? Corporate obligation? Stong consumer protections? The lack of them all indicate a rocky future with the exsistance of the US constitution. As an *up standing* business man in a few years, I'll find that there is no opportunity in US markets for a legitimate capitalist like myself and take my money else where.
*sarcasism*
By the way I paid CNN 93,000 to use business man with women and children in the same sentence. Costly but but the pay off is worth it.
*/sarcasism*
About a car. Guess what happens next?
Legislator put a legislation that effectively
put the price of insurance of such old cars to
be much more higher than the new ("Safe" and
"trackable", thanks to GPS).
the damned thing will be revoked,
and BAM (ala Emeril style) its gone
So, if this succeeds, all those GMs and other cars out there with homelink will have illegal devices in them?
Gee, remotes (which everyone has pointed out), homelink....hmmm, I supose scanners that follow digital trunks are illegal under DCMA....how about modems? Gee, anything that interoperates could be in trouble....
Silly lawsuits would be brought less often, if laywers thought that they would get reasonable people on a jury. But because their exists a culture where only those with really unimportant jobs serve on jury duty, only those that can be put into really unimportant jobs serve on jury duty.
If more reasonable people served on juries then you would see a lot less silly lawsuits.
When asked to serve, then serve. Otherwise you are the cause of 2 million dollar cups of coffee, and warnings on everything.
Mark
The US Congress reacted by passing the Magnusson-Moss Act. For physical things (specifically cars) this does a pretty good job at allowing aftermarket parts that are compatible with your car and at breaking the dealer's monopoly on service. (Note that there do remain problems with embedded car computers and service codes!)
What we need is the intellectual property equivalent to the Magnusson-Moss act. We need to be able to buy compatible parts (like garage door remote controls) from other companies. We need to be able to open the hood and figure out interfaces. We need to be able to run or write different new software for boxes we've already bought, and not be locked into a single software vendor. In particular, we need to be able to do these without the fear of getting our asses sued off.
The only thing shared here is the concept of a "REMTOTE"
Universal remotes aren't going to be hit because TV makers relase the damn codes in the first place.
DHM info page
rooooar
. . . Big Brother is watched by YOU!
Here's the text of a minor revision to the DMCA that I would support:
It's that simple. With 1201(a) gone, all you have left is subsection (b), which seems only to codify the Betamax doctrine established by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in Sony v. Universal.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Oh don't worry. Soon enough you'll be american anyway. Your country, like most other, will become just another state in the Empire, to be ruled under the Bush dynasty. But unless you have oil they want, I guess you will have a few years left still.
Should someone remind these guys that the garage door opener is analog?
I see the original patent was issued in 1988, and "re-issued" in 1996. What's a re-issued patent? That sounds like a circumvention of the original patent's time limit. If it's re-issued just before it expires, doesn't that mean it's time limit begins again since it has a new patent number? I'm very curious if anyone is familiar with the process.
Developers: We can use your help.
ridiculous. how long til the dmca is used in an attempt to halt production of universal tv remote controls?
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
That should have been:
There's a reason Congress takes place slower than Slashdot.
Will I retire or break 10K?
if you happen to click your opener a couple of times while out of range, you leave the "forward window" and will be unable to open your garage door! If I had one of these Chamberlain GDOs, I'd rush out and buy a Skylink universal opener right now!
it looks to me like the plaintiff provides a secure lock for the door but leaves a key under the doormat - then compounds the stupidity by posting a sign telling passers-by about it.
Isn't it more like 2184 and a half hours?
I have the quaint belief that when I purchase an object, I get, by 'common law' notions, rights to use it in ways generally accepted as "fair." My beef with these DMCA abominations is that the law is being applied to people/situations where the seller is springing new interpretations on us retroactively.
But why not allow contracts between sellers and consumers that specify limited use? It seems implicit that the DVDs I get thru Netflix are for me and/or my non-commercial friends to watch however I want, but only one at a time and only until the disk goes back into the mailbox. I would expect to pay much more for the right to make "archival" copies, and don't want that right if it costs anything at all.
How about a compromise that requires labelling of devices that the seller deems to be subject of DMCA. Devices NOT so stickered would not be subject.
So, your garage door opener might come with a bright orange sticker saying, "This device is covered by DMCA. Under this law, only a GrubbyCo-authorized firm may repair this device or sell you replacement parts or accessories."
And the CD might say, "This material is covered by DMCA. Under this law, you may only play it on a single device approved by GrubbyCo."
Somebody who gave it some more thought could maybe make a universal description that'd reflect the company's unilateral redefinition of "fair use rights," while allowing consumers to choose what they want. Perhaps I'd pay a premium to have a less-restricted "Aida" so I could transfer it to my iPod (does the music industry really believe that I will buy/lug around multiple media or quality versions of the same material???), or a version of TurboBills that I can install on multiple machines. More likely, I hope, consumers would avoid laserprinters that can't use 3rd-party toner cartridges, etc., enough that the market would drive the offensive uses of DMCA into irrelevance.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
You won't be able to challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA while the sitting Supreme Court is in an "upholding" mood with respect to copyright laws.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I am going to make some doors. Then sue every company that makes door knobs. These knobs allow people to open my doors! This defeats my anti-piracy measure. The door is intended to prevent people from the other side from getting in and stealing! How can companies manufacture door knobs in good conscience?
Now, onto my original point. The DMCA is a law, and as faithful American citizens, it's our duty to obide by it and cherish it, as all laws must be cherished. Laws prevent lawlessness, which in turn prevents a nice society in which folks live nicely, which, finally, prevents a happy life.
You may recognize this quote:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (emphasis mine)
While using published 'codes', as many universal remotes woudnt be in violation, the ones that actually 'learn' from an existing remote would be.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Cascading Style Sheets?
Sorry, I couldn't help it...LOL
"they wanted a secure sytem, the remote could query the opener for a current timestamp, and then it could use that timestamp to generate an appropriate code and send it. "
An easier way to do a rolling code system would be this:
When the garage gets a code it opens and changes to the next code.
When the key is pressed it generates a new code.
The garage accepts the code it expects plus the next 100 in the code sequence.
So now, if I press the key and I'm out of range it doesn't matter. The garage will accept the next code and the next 98.
I can press it 100 times before I have to go manually into the garage and resync them.
Similarly if the garage is fooled somehow into thinking it has a legal code and advances to the next sequence, when I press the fob the first time it doesn't work, the next time it does because the fob advances until they are in sequence again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See, it's mine. I can do with it what I want.
Laws that remove rights to "protect us from ourselves" are often ignored because of the dictates of common sense. For example, here is a list of the laws I have broken this morning:
1. This morning I shoveled my driveway and threw some of the snow into the road.
2. I also threw some of the snow on the sidewalk.
3. I failed, however, to shovel out the area near the fire hydrant in front of my house.
4. I then proceeded to start my car and loudly rev the engine several times to warm it up a little. (Local noise ordnance forbids doing this.)
5. My car is missing one of the turn signal lenses, but I drove it anyway because it wont come in until tomorrow.
6. I exceeded the speed limit numerous times so as not to impede the flow of traffic, which is also illegal.
7. I failed to use my turn signal on a number of occasions, seeing as how it doesnt have a lens anyway.
8. I threw an apple core out the window into a large field.
9. I parked in a spot labeled "patient parking only" even though I am an employee, since every employee spot was taken.
10. I threw out a soda can because we dont have any recycle bins at work.
11. I listened to several MP3s ripped off of CDs of friends.
12. I used some windex in a manner inconsistant with its labeling.
I'm sure I've done even more "bad" things, but those probably demonstrate the most blatant disregard for the laws that I am supposed to hold so dear.
Honestly, I doubt there many persons in America, lawmakers/enforcers included, that would not be guilty of breaking some of the laws that violate common sense.
If you bought a garage door, by god its yours and you can paint it whatever color you want to. Living in fear of the consequences of using your own property, in a way that does not harm others, is a product of mass paranoia manifested in lawmakers extreme knee-jerk reactions to local upsets or other tragedies. My observation is that the larger the tragedy/upset, the more extreme the reaction.
Ahhhh, the land of the free...
[sig]you really dont want the answers, trust me[/sig]
Just don't buy a 20 year old *Chrysler* product. I know, I own one.
Auto mfgrs are required to make parts available for a certain number of years (I think it's 7). After that, they tend to become special-order and VERY expensive. Ford keeps those parts available for 20 years; Chrysler does only the bare minimum. So any parts for older Chrysler vehicles are special order, period. That's why the brake caliper cost me $280 for my 1979 Chrysler, but the same part was only $60 for my 1978 Ford. And that's why the master cylinder for my Chrysler was special order and took several days to get, and cost twice what the same off-the-rack part cost for my Ford.
BTW, a lot of the 1950s and '60s street tanks got 20-25mpg, even with bigger engines (and hauling a lot more steel, thus weight) than newer vehicles that get 12mpg. Makes you wonder.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Yet another case where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are being used to impede legitimate competition, similar to the Lexmark case. Not, I think, what Congress had in mind when enacting the DMCA. Above from email... This is exactly what DMCA was bought from congress for. It allows big pre-existing corp's to kill any and or all competition. They can mostly get by just with the extra justification to file a lawsuit, as the expensive litigation will harm competitors and discourage new competitors from entering the market, whether the big brother corp wins or not. The threat of expensive litigation will not only discourage others from entering the market, but discourage investors from backing those companies, thereby leading to new competiting companies from entering the market. Ultimately, it is the consumer, or in better terms "the American citizen" who is harmed. After such lawsuits the consumer will have fewer choices, worse choices, and higher prices. This is a law that at it's root core justifies monopolies and hinders competition to everyone's detriment. And this is exactly what DMCA is all about. That is what the companies who bought it were looking for exactly...to be saved, no matter what the market conditions, no matter what consumers want, no matter what is reasonable, they will have their status quo as is forever. In 50 years when some of us or our kids are running the government then they'll see how terrible these laws are and will vote these restrictions away.
Most mid to upscale cars have this Homelink feature. Three buttons on the visor or somewhere above the head, and it is the universial GDO. It can do the rolling code as well as the dip switched one as well.
When is Chamberlain going to sue them ?
By the way, I just bought a Skylink, and it 'learns' the code, even the dip switched ones. ie, i live in a 'gated community' and I had to set the second button to open the gate, so I had to change the dip switches to that code, and then follow the 'learn' method, so now one button opens the GD, and the other open the gate. This same remote can 'learn' all the others, all you need to know is the brand, and have both remotes ( now, i have not tried to capture my neighbors code.. )
I guess I will have to stock up on those remotes now
How long before speaking out against the DMCA becomes "circumvention", thus unlawful?
:(
Ya know, I meant that as facetious, but the root problem with the DMCA is that it may well become reality.
Especially since half the time, when we flush out one crop of lousy lawmakers, we get a worse bunch of weeds the next time. (And yes, I do vote.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
They can't take away my universal TV remote. I refuse to go back to using 5 remotes to turn on the TV, VCR, DVD player, stereo system, and cable box. If they do try this, I'll just buy equipment from companies that allow a universal remote.
This reminds me of the Amiga Mod scene in the late 80's. The PC users(who constantly bashed the Amiga as a toy) were trying to dictate to the Amiga users to use the DOS constrained 8.3 naming convention when creating the Amiga mods.
Why doesnt some smart guy out there just invent something with a easily circumventable process built in, distribute it to the masses, and await the slew of lawsuits to get working capitol. :) Oh yeah and I copyrighted this thought so dont even think about taking it.
EU has already adopted the DMCA (under a different name, InfoSoc).
It still needs to be made into law in the individual member nations, so far only Denmark and Greece have implemented it.
By circumventing physical security, you gain access to the movie studio's library, and you can copy its original film masters.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Could the DMCA be used against spammers? Say for example, that I post a message to usenet. That would be a copyrighted original work. Now, if I include an email address as part of that post, except I post it as my_usenet_address.at.myhost.com. Despite the weakness of it, there is still a digital "encryption" technique being used here. Lots of spam-bots are programmed to look for exactly this and "decrypt" it. Now, if I were to use a uniqe email address in usenet only, I could guarantee that any email received at that address must have come from someone breaking my "digital encyption technique" and thus, violating the DMCA...
BLAMMO! Litigation!
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
VW also sells this same system in its Passat and Audi (many models) vehicles. It's supplied by Johnson Controls. They call it Homelink, and it's built into the driver's sun visor.
http://www.homelink.com/home/home.tml is the site.
All that would have to be done would be to manage to block Homelink from supplying these and not only would it vanish from VW/Audi and Acura, but many other carmakers' cars as well.
i am a soviet space shuttle
In the 1960's, many states passed laws that basically banned black people from voting. Many fought and even died protesting and fighting to overturn these BAD laws! Following some people's logic here, we all should have passively just obeyed those laws. I'm sure that Rosa Parks should have been flogged for deciding to sit in front of the bus too, right? Look, laws are passed by people, not gods. Since people are not gods, they can be motivated by - how can I put this - less them ethical principles (These are called LOBBYISTS for the unitiated). A democracy needs, no rather DEMANDS that it's citizens keep its lawmakers honest, BUT THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!. Apathy by the voters is the problem, and it's caused by the lawmakers themselves! They employ psychologists, press agents, publicists, ad agencies and other 'spin meisters' to keep the voters in line (and out of the ballot box). That way their re-election is assured, and the ability for their pockets to be 'greased' as well. Until the people speak at the ballot box (and based on the pathetically small turnouts these days it's not likely to happen) things will not change, they'll just continue getting worse.
Hi, there's a bit on the web about it, check out this link, it seems the DMCA can "outlaw" numbers :)
i llegal-primes.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Stego/
RJ
Last.fm - join the social music revolution
In Soviet Russia, you no take off hat, it will nailed to your head.
Okay, actually, that was under Ivan the Terrible, but I digress...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Bah! The only 20 year old vehicle I'd buy would be a Chrysler... Make that 30 years, just to be safe.
I'd easily sell my neighbor's kid for another 1971 Dodge Demon. Or maybe a nice Challenger or Charger....
As for replacement parts -- Year One has an excellent catalog. You could practically build an entire car using their catalog. Everything except the tires and gas.
As for the mileage, I couldn't tell you what my 225CID slant 6 got. I can tell you a rebuilt block was $300. And talk about easy to fix.. None of this computerized crap. Points, a distributor, 6 spark plugs and the starter and solenoid were all I really ever had to mess with. Mostly because the SOBs at Pep Boys broke the distributor mount when adjusting the timing.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
universal remote control
external devices with proprietary drivers (until now, you could buy any external device and use any third party driver you like. now you would only be able to use manufacturer recommended driver.
if you discover a secret command for your printer to take third party ink, then that would be a breach of DMCA
Photocopier to work only with manufacturer recommended plain paper. They will digitally encode information on each paper in watermark. Trying to tweak your photocopier to accept third party papers would be illegal.
by the time, you discover, you have been duped, it would be too late as in the case of garage opener. you bought a garage door and your opener mal-functions and original manufacturer charges you more than the new garage door. what will you do? consumers protests cannot work. for that to work, the case has to become public and only so many of them can become public which people can keep track of it. either get rid of DMCA or you are doomed! theoretically, it is legal under DMCA for auto manufacturer to device their engine in such a way, that it can detect certain brand of fuel and may deliberately refuse to work with non-affiliated brand. it would be a breach of DMCA to bypass such a device even if you could.
I'm sure M$ could bust every word processor ( like whoever owns Word Perfect these days, or Sun, their favorite target) for "reverse-engineering" their file formats. Of course, they'll probably 2 months after they remove file conversion support from office.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Skylink reverse engineered Chamberlain's patented garage door opener system, which uses a code that changes every time to prevent burglars from recording the code and tranmitting at a later date to break in. Skyline's transmitter remote essentially resets the receiver every time, thereby producing the same code every time. This results in a circumvention of the security, making it easy for a burglar to record and break in using the reset sequence, not normally available to the public. Skyline's device violates Chamberlain's patents. Skyline deserves to lose this case.
Vote for Pedro
If Skylink can just get away with circumventing the protection on the codes, then they can copy the codes. And if that happens, then the Chamberlain Group will no longer have any incentive to creatively make up good codes. Then we all suffer, because instead of having good aesthetically-pleasing codes made by artists, we'll probably all end up with remotes that use bland commercialized codes manufactured with a pseudo-random number generator or something. Who wants to live in a world like that? This kind of bleak existence is just the sort of thing DMCA was meant to protect us from.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My favorite part of the motion for summary judgement is the part where they explain that they manufacture their own universal GDO that does the same thing to Genie. Without further explanation they claim that this does not infringe.
To go completely off topic, be careful when mixing random cleaning products. Using a sodium hypochlorite-based drain opener (Drano) followed by a "professional plumber strength" sulfuric acid-based product WILL produce enough (highly painful) chlorine gas to necessitate evacuating a room!
But they can sue YOU for telling us all about this circumvention technique. After all, the BF1942 CD has "substantial non-infringing use"... But you chose to tell us how to utilize its one infringing use :-)
Freedom: "I won't!"
I've come across the section of the DMCA which is being "violated" in this "case". Reading legal documents is the harder than correcting slashdot authors grammar. Anyway, here it is.
--Not important--
Title V: Protection of Certain Original Designs - Vessel Hull Design Protection Act - Amends Federal copyright law to provide for protection of original designs of vessel hulls which make a vessel attractive or distinctive in appearance to the purchasing or using public.
--The violation (doesn't seem important)
Bars protection for designs that are: (1) not original; (2) staple or commonplace; (3) dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article that embodies them; or (4) embodied in a useful article that was made public by the designer or owner more than one year before the date of application for registration.
Provides for ten-year terms of protection.
Sets forth marking and design notice requirements for protected designs. Bars recovery against persons who began undertakings leading to infringement before receiving notice. Places the burden of providing notice of protection on design owners.
Grants owners of protected designs exclusive rights to make, have made, import, sell, or distribute for sale or for use in trade any useful article embodying protected designs. Makes it infringement to engage in such activities with respect to infringing articles without an owner's consent. Provides that it shall not be infringement to: (1) engage in certain activities with respect to protected designs without knowledge; or (2) reproduce a protected design solely for purposes of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the appearance, concepts, or techniques embodied in the design or the functions of the useful article embodying the design.
Places the burden of establishing a design's originality on the party alleging rights in a design.
Provides that protection shall be lost if application for design registration is not made within two years after the date on which the design is first made public.
Sets forth registration application requirements. Accords protection to designs with respect to which an application was filed by a U.S. owner in a foreign country on the date as filed if the U.S. application is filed within six months after the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) determinations of registrations and procedures for cancelling registrations in cases where a party believes he or she may be damaged by registration; and (2) ownership and transfer of property rights of protected designs.
Authorizes design owners to seek judicial review of final refusals of the Register of Copyrights to register designs. Permits the use of arbitration to resolve infringement disputes. Authorizes injunctive relief to prevent infringement.
Provides for recovery of damages or the infringer's profits in infringement cases. Sets a three-year statute of limitations with respect to recovery for infringement. Authorizes the court to order or cancel registrations. Prescribes penalties for the filing of infringement actions with respect to fraudulently-obtained registrations or making false markings or representations.
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postal Service to issue regulations for the enforcement of exclusive rights with respect to importation of protected designs. Subjects articles imported in violation of such rights to seizure and forfeiture.
Terminates protection under this Act upon issuance of a design patent with respect to an original design.
Grants the U.S. district courts jurisdiction over actions arising under this Act.
Not unless you can show that piracy is/can occur by using a universal remote.
You can't spell Geek without EE!
You can't spell Lose with OO!
They have to wait to make sure the check clear before to act...
VOICE:
3 billion human lives ended on October 28, 1998. The survivors of the DMCA called the law unfair and unjust. They lived only to face a new nightmare, the war against the Corporations...
Skylink, the company which manufactured garage door openers, hired two lawyers to uphold their IP. Their mission: to force a rival corporation to cease and desist manufacturing universal garage door remote controls.
The first lawyer was programmed to strike at The Chamberlain Group, the makers of the universal remote...before they could make any money from their product.
The second was set to strike at the people themselves, while they didn't understand the ramifications of this terriblelaw. As before, the resistance was able to post their outrage at a lone website. A protector for geeks. It was just a question of which one of them would reach the public first...
...debbie is a complete whore. She gives her ass away the way you or I might give away twinkies at an Overeater's Anonymous convention.
But beware. Because debbie is so free with her fat ass, she's filled with more cream thank the aforementioned twinkie.
I guess what I'm saying is *stay away* from her. Unless you like that sort of thing.
When Chamberlain goes out of business, where are you going to get the money to feed your hysterical crack edition, you hoar!
That prime is 'illegal' because it is just another way to express a program that has been deemed 'illegal'. But that doesn't address the issue of copyright at all. If you had a legal program and you encoded it as a long prime, you would be able to defend a copyright on your program, but I doubt you'd be able to claim copyright protections on that prime to force mathematicians to stop using it. Using the prime by itself is not using your original work of authorship.
Or more precisely: Home Depot and Lowes have the money the defend the suit. The game is: sue someone with enough money to settle and not enough money to litigate.
...and why Chamberlain should be put out of business, their buildings razed, and the earth salted where their factory once stood.
Then their families should be rounded up and put in dugeons so hideous and terrible that I refuse to mention it.
This will serve as the kind of lesson necessary. Terrible, yes. Necessary, yes.
But it doesn't seem that opening a garage can be considered "a work". Sure, the transmitter is circumventing technology, but there is no "protected work". The only "work" they could claim is their encoded signal, but this remote doesn't work by decoding the signal; it uses a back door. Since it is the signal thats protected and they aren't decrypting the signal, then this claim seems groundless.
You're talking about an original work of authorship, which is encoded as a list of numbers. The fact that it's encoded in binary format doesn't change the fact that it's an original work of authorship.
1, 2, 3, 4 is not an original work of authorship. If you could use some weird encoding mechanism to turn the windows code into exactly that list '1, 2, 3, 4' that would have no effect on my ability to use the list 1, 2, 3, 4 for my own purposes.
The door opener company was claiming that their software code was copyright which i don't deny, but seemed to be confusing that with a list of numbers contained within or produced by that software - and that piece I don't think can be copyrighted. If I use a luhn checking script to generate all possible Visa card numbers, can I copyright that list and sue Visa for issuing cards with numbers that appear on that list? That seems to be what this company is doing.
But the number of valid codes just went up from 1 to 100. I'd rather stick with one unique code this second that will open the door.
I'm talking just a list of numbers (12, 833, 2983, 3873). The company says their algorigthm is copyrighted and I don't deny that, but I do deny that the output of the algorithm is also copyrighted. I don't think the DMCA applied in that other case anyway.
The moral here is that just because something is nominally in the public interest does not mean that it is, does not mean that it is reasonable, and does not mean that working around the law is always so wrong (sometimes it is the lesser or two evils). I do not necessarily judge the ranchers here to be in the wrong and the government in the right.
'cause you just explained to me how to circumvent an access device (garage door opener)? So basicly I need to catch the code from two subsequent presses.
Look out for those stormtroopers when they come crashing through the window.
This is getting tragicomic...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This sounds a lot like encoding something in ROT-13 and that decoding that is a DMCA violation.
It's not difficult to make this a secure system, it would simply cost a little more as you'd have to do a crypthographic handshake (easiest and safest, would require a two-way communication tho).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Is nothing holy? Garage door openers? So next McDonalds is going to sue Burgerking for decrypting the big mac and selling a replacement? I mean, come on people!
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
Let's see, Chapter 17, section 1201:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
a work protected under this title... OK,
What the complaint seems to be saying is that the portion of the code in the reciever that actually opens the door is protected by the technological measure. You can execute those instructions only by supplying a correct code.
This is kind of a leap. If you circumvent a DRM system, you'll be attacked for gaining access to, say a Liquid Audio song, not the code that decrypts the song.
It does make some sense, though.
Many are confused because the judgement makes the leap in one place & screws up horribly in another, where it seems to claim that
Leap: "II Thus the protectecive measure in Chamberlain's receiver rolling code computer program controlls access to Chamberlain's copyrighted computer program in the receiver that operates Chamberlain's GDOs. The computer program does not execute if an improper rolling code is received from an unauthorized transmitter."
Insanity: "III Skylink's transmission [...] circumvents Chamberlain's rolling code technology, thereby eliminating the important protective measure that prevents burglars with a code grabber from gaining unauthorized access to garages...."
Umm... garage access isn't protected by the DMCA.
Well if the weapons inspector's find some in Iraq we well certainly go to war and take it away from them.
How many inventions that we take for granted today have been based on preexisitng technology? If the DMCA was in effect at those times, imagine how our lives may have been. Disney would also not have gotten off the ground, as it would have had to come up with original ideas (God forbid)
Anyway, enough bitching, I leave with one last thought: "The past was the present and the future. The present builds upon this past, and the future builds upon the present as well as the past. If the past or the present is locked, then what are we to build upon, and what will the future in turn hold?"-- Gerald Normandin
Hey, this is my sig, if you don't like it, STOP READING MY POSTS!
And today... a class action lawsuit making use of the DMCA is brought against the makers of sporks by the makers of forks, claiming that the use of protrusions on the spork's modified "spoon" shape was a component taken from the "fork" design, violating their NDA.
On a semi-related note: Makers of spoons are filing a similar suit against the makers of sporks.
Spork makers' stocks are seeing a decline in stock valuations....
Winged Power Photography
The owner of a 600 space garage, like an apartment complex or company parking lot
You then would need to give out 600 openers plus keep spares on hand.
I just seems like nobody wants to test this new law, but everybody wants to use it like the club it was designed to be. Somebody need to fight this thing in court, but that will take years and lots of cash.
It will only happen on a case between two very rich parties (say, MPAA/RIAA vs. a consumer electronics giant) on an issue that neither thinks they can afford to lose (like the Betamax case). A lightweight defendant will always be lawyered into submission before reaching the Supreme Court. A reasonably "unimportant" issue will be settled well before it reaches the Supreme Court, as well.
Basically, the IP cartel has to seriously piss off another major corporation before this will ever be struck down by the Judiciary. Something ludicrious, like maybe deny Samsung the right to licence the next DRM-enabled audio-disc format because they start marketing players that make perfect red book CD copies, or some other legal yet non-media-corp freindly function.
And truthfully, the IP cartel isn't that stupid! They know they have a Golden Goose with this legislation: they would be idiots to ever permit this law to be tested for its Constitutionality by the Supreme Court. They'll accept many small losses (and even some big ones) just to make sure that the law stays on the books. Like you said, the "club" is precisely what this is about: the right of established, funds-giving companies to smash any new competitor with a new way of doing things with digital media before they can ever hope to compete on a level playing field.
My only hope was that with this law in effect for four years now, was that would have been enough time to make a substantial (and attributable) difference to the US economy that there would have been industry pressure to reverse the law. Sadly, this hasn't happened yet. And now most countries (including here in Canada) are moving to ratify the WIPO treaties with their own DMCA-like legislation.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
No, I eat the shit of racid decaying goats, and fuck dead rats. Get it straight, looser.
I read 80 posts and no one has grasped the one legitimate complaint that I see. The use of the Skylink universal remote stops the code from rolling, reducing the security, without informing the buyer, and potentially tarnishing the image of the Rolling Code Security System, because the Skylink remote uses the same codes every time.
All the patent infringement claims, and the DMCA claim look bogus to my untrained eye, but Skylink IS doing something wrong: they are not telling the customer the entire truth. IMHO, the best result would be for the courts to force Skylink to tell customers that their products disable the Rolling Code Security System in order to interoperate.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Your right, I doubt that the IP cartels would be so stupid as to try and test this law, but here is an idea to test it:
What if I were to create a "DRM" technology and protect some sort of work with it. Then a friend of mine could break this "DRM" system. I could then sue them using the DMCA. Essentially become the plantif for a DeCSS type case and try and take it all the way to the Supreme Court. The only difference is that I would not pull all the "dirty lawyer" tricks and blead the defense dry. It would take years, but not cost too much.
Not sure if this could work, but it would give RIAA and MPAA quite a headache!
[End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
Last time I checked everyone from Chrysler to Volvo offered some sort of garage door opener, wether it be in the car or on the key fob.
So why don't they just go after them?
These blanted abuses of the DMCA need to stop.
Very interesting, although I think you'd better keep your friendship with your "opponent" a very well-kept secret! I'm pretty sure that if a whiff of this plan became known to the judge (at any level of the proceedings) you'd get slapped with contempt of court (or some other conflict-of-interest-type charge) pretty quickly. And your pals at the RIAA and MPAA would helping to investigate such a relationship very closely.
Plus (dons conspiracy hat), I imagine that before you even get close to the Supremes, a lower court would be "encouraged" by folks unknown to simply refuse to hear an appeal of the decision made by the court directly under him/her/them. No appeal granted, no way to force the issue.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Buying a universal remote is usually a lot cheaper than going to the maker of the TV and asking to buy another remote.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
To me it would seem to open them up to more damages than they could expect to claim from their case?
The fact that a fish swims in water does not make it an expert in fluid dynamics. GogglesPisano (199483)
There was no indication of how any of this precious data would be transmitted: the issue of faxes of drawings and the like. Should they send specifications via electronic means, are we liable if someone hacks into our computer, or intercepts e-mail, or burglarizes the computer? The agreement said nothing about what constututed disclosure, no guidance on electronic documents and no 'material support' to ensure their IP rights. No provision for contacting our vendors to service this account. Are we liable if they fail to honor a third party's trade secrets concerns? The answer to me was a resounding yes.
In addition, it has a funny clause they stated that we could disclose their data, if it was already in the public domain. Since we deal in public standards, I could see a whole host of scenarios where we could be induced into inadvertently disclosing their 'trade secrets.'
A PUMP MANUFACTURER!
I came to the conclusion after reading this gem that signing the document would open us up to a legal snake pit. It would cost us more to impliment the agreement for the ONE customer than all of our others combined.
After doing some research and discovering they had done something on the order of $26.00 USD worth of business in the passed two years, I threw the agreement away. Wasn't even gonna spend a stoopid postage stamp on this NDA.
Dawn of the Dead
Defendant Lawyer - Sir do you own a pentent over the frequencies used by your garage door opener?
DMCA Weenie - No they're part of a Unlicensed band provided by the FCC.
Defendant Lawyer - Would you say you have copyrights to any personal code your customers put in the garage door opener?
DMCA Weenie - well umm no they made it up themselves.
Case closed.
...we'll let Epson sue Hammermill for reverse engineering the paper specification for their printers and making Epson-like paper. ...we'll let the auto companies sue the states for creating roads compatible with their vehicles instead of letting them sell their own toll roads which were made right for their vehicles.
Couldn't a garage door be opened using a counter circuit driving a transmitter?
Seems like it could.
Perhaps the IDIOTS running the United States should outlaw the Books Malvino, Grob, and every tech manual from Radio Shack, TI, Motorola, Analog Devices, Transmeta, etc.
All in the name of the DMCA!
Couldn't someone just go buy electronic parts and solder them together?
Seems like they can.
Are the chips available to anyone who wants to buy them?
Can someone copy a circuit of say a TV set, and make their own?
So when is electronics going to be outlawed?
Anyone know what a freq counter is?
I suggest that folks make their OWN garage door locking system, for example, the idea of using time is cool, but I would take it one step further, would control the electricity to the door itself.
e.g. sure you can find the frequency to actually open the door, but do you ALSO have the frequency to apply power to the actual door?
My garage door opener would be two garage door openers taped together.
and it might just have some FAKE frequencies thrown in to screw with freq counters. You start pushing buttons and you have so many frequencies going nobody is gonna know what's happening. I would have bogus freq's rolling from hell, I would tune this bastard so that it spews spurious harmonics as far as the eye can see, a cracker even with a spectrum analyzer is going to have a hard time.
How come in ham radio, spread spectrum, they don't allow too many freq's or too many patterns.
There is the reason. The FCC is moronic! And Corrupt.
The only thing that should matter (to the Moronic FCC) is if you understand and can visualize Frequency and power. If so you should have license to do anything. The DMCA is a waste of everything this country stands for. We are NO longer the land of the free! We are SLAVES to our corrupted MASTERS! We are stupid, and stupidity is DANGEROUS to lives, and we are LAZY ass Hamburger Eating pieces of Protoplasm! I sure hope we do not loose the right to have weapons that are not registered in the MASTERS database or we are nothing more than DEAD CORPSES.
We need to teach electronics to our children in this country, we need to quit with all the crap in our education system that serves no use in the real world. We need to buy our children ham radio KITS they build themselves, and don't kick CB out either. How about a spread spectrum CB radio. Now that would rock, and slap that puppy on funnys - woo-hoo!
As far as this DMCA crap goes, I hope it doesn't mean that when I go to Home Depot (btw - notice since they got rid of linux you need to have IE for their website?) for my Martin that it's going to cost twice as much now because of these mother-fscking lawyers and greedy bastards! I hope when I go to Lowes, that my Amarr isn't going to cost twice as much. The DMCA, Lawyers, and Greedy Bastards are our enemy. Never forget that!!
NEVER!
Love Music? Got a Band? Are you a Label? http://garageradio.com
What's really sad, is that a number of people are suing Bushmaster for making the AR-15 that the two shooters (they weren't accurate enough to be snipers ;)in the DC area were using last year. They claim that because Bushmaster allowed them to be sold, that they are responsible for the deaths.
WTF?
That's like suing the Swiss Army Knife company, because a serial killer decides that he likes to kill people with them. It's completely bogus, but will probably end up winning anyways.
...but in the end the politicians, even though they agreed it was a bad law, did not dare go up against EU. The law was toned down slightly, and the notes to the law (which have a semi-legal status) explicitly says that you are allowed to break encryption in order to access the material from Linux (they explicitly mention Linux, but I hope that will be interpreted as an example).
HOT coffee equals BOILING HOT coffee because that's how coffee is made. That woman wasn't aware how fragile styrofoam is. That woman was a greedy cunt who will blame others of her own mistakes. That woman was awarded because of her geediness and partly because McDonald's wouldn't kiss judge's ass properly and was therefore perceived as "indifferent and arrogant".
Whenever you see US judge on US soil, you better suck his dick and/or kiss his/her ass because they're the kings/queens of this motherfucking country.
"The DMCA charge fails because of the reverse engineering parts of the law. - DUH!"
Bring a lawsuit for reverse-engineering the DMCA to determine who can be sued for a given law, rather than the normal method of looking at a suspect then finding the right law.
Heads Up, Folks! We have an opportunity here for some real excitement. If this suit gets settled against universal remote manufacturers, the next thing to come our way will be lawsuits from owners of garage door openers who can no longer access their cars.
This sounds like grand larceny after trust, to me. Car owners trusted the original door opener manufacturer to protect their property, and instead they're denying the owners use and access to private property.
Stand By!
I make a list of all possible visa numbers. Then I add a couple others i make up, take out a few valid ones. It's now a 'creative' work by some minimum standard. And I copyright it. So what? That doesn't let me complain when I see one of those nubmers elsewhere, and the original door maker says using their resynch code, or the first default code (it's kind of unclear) is making use of their copyrighted list. I think that claim is wrong.
i don't see why the DMCA was invoked here, but if the suing company has a patent on universal openers and the other company is making amd selling them, then it is infringement.
am i wrong here? Skylink is making the exact product that the the other company has apatent on right?
i am down with the EFF and i am a supporter of Open Source. but every time someone sues for Copyright infringement, it isn't wrong. everyone can't give away their secrets. some people really would go out of business if they did.
but the DMCA? i don't see how it applies here at all.
Evil is the money of all root....
There was no copyright infringement. But from my reading of the article, I read it as the company was claiming that Skylink was making use of copyrighted material by using the resynch code, but it's been a couple days so I could be mistaken.
One question though - they have a copyrighted list. I determine what's on the list by sending various modulated codes until I find one that works, then repeat ad infinitum until I know the sequence. At the end I have the list, but I didn't copy it, I derived it. Could copyright claims still apply? Would this be circumventing effective access controls to get copyrighted material? I would think this would fall under 'reverse engineering for interoperability' but I don't know how that concept relates to copyright.
jdreed1024: But, yes, if some guy goes to your house, and recognizes that you have a Yale lock, model $foo, then he could likely get a master key for it.
No. Give the lock industry a little credit. A system that would allow what you describe would be ludicrously insecure.
Even for systems with fewer combinations of pin heights, such as 4-pin pre-1980 american automotive locks, one cannot get a master key - one has to obtain a master key set of about 250 keys, each position of which is specifically cut to a height between two production key heights. The specific technique of such a key set is to try one key at a time, and really wiggle it around so the in-between cut heights actually touch two pin heights.
Even the most entry-level residential lockset sold at any reputable dealer has a 5-pin cylinder made of brass instead of pot metal and is machined to considerably better tolerances that those auto locks. Any commercial lock-set will step up to a 6-pin cylinder. Such locks can and are keyed for master keys, by stacking multiple pins of varying heights into each pin position. Master keys for such locks are part of a "keying design" which considers minimum pin heights for each key among other factors.
My point being, the master keys are part of the design, and are generated at the same time as the occupant keys. You can't walk into a locksmith (legal or otherwise) and just get a master key for model $foo, unless that locksmith happened to be the one who designed the keying system for that facility, or you'd already stolen the blueprints for that keying system.
That said, it is worth noting that it is not uncommon for a bulding contractor to have all the locks for a housing sub-division keyed to a single master that his crew supervisors carry. That's why one of the first things a new home owner should do is to have all the locks re-keyed to a new non-mastered key that only the home owner retains.
I am a locksmith.
Richard