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)."
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.
If universal tv remote manufacturers are next on the list to be hit by the DMCA
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 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
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?
In a way, using a 3rd party remote is like going down to the local keycutters shop and getting a copy of your front door key made. It's not authorised by the manufacturer of your front door lock and it's a direct copy of part of their product. I wouldn't want that to be illegal. If I needed a spare key, I'd have to go to the door lock manufacturer every time, and hope they didn't go out of business, otherwise I'd have to change the lock.
Anyhow.. there are a a couple of bizarre points brought up by the lawyers. Firstly, they reckon that Skylink's transmitters "when set to operate Chamberlain's rolling code GDOs, have no other purpose or use than to circumvent Chamberlain's technological protective measure". Does "opening my garage door so I can get the car in" not count as a use? Secondly, they claim that "Skylink's [] transmitters are marketed for use in circumventing Chamberlain's technological protective measures", and go on to explain that Skylink "promotes its universal transmitters as additional transmitters to be used with Chamberlain's rolling code GDO systems". I could understand it if Skylink promoted it's transmitters as "great for bypassing the security measures on your neighbour's Chamberlain garage door".
It seems to imply that the sole use of the Skylink device is to gain unauthorised access to other people's property. However, that clearly isn't the case. Just like DeCSS, it can be used for legal and illegal purposes. Unless Skylink's intentions can be proven to be to develop the transmitter primarily for illegal purposes - which I'm also fairly sure isn't the case - then this should be thrown out. Of course, this all relies on common sense being applied, with which the DMCA seems to be mutually exclusive...
I think it's becoming a rule that the DMCA is used whenever the original company does something really stupid.
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.