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)."
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.....
It's called a crowbar.
Don't sell me a crowbar proof door if it ain't crowbar proof.
Don't whine that stores shouldn't be selling crowbars.
And sure as hell, don't sue the guy making me a crowbar. Makes it sound like it ain't my door to bang on, makes it sound like it ain't your money to be suing anyone with.
Look, I don't know what to say. It's my door. I want to open it with whatever remote I damn well please. If it's possible for me to generate a remote for my door that doesn't actually require me to do anything particularly special *as the owner*, then the remote control I had doesn't actually protect me as much as I thought it would.
Now I know I may need to buy a new door, or I may decide to accept the risk. But it's my door to make that choice with.
--Dan
Legislators aren't above telling you what you can do with the stuff you think you own. All you have to do is convince them that there are negative effects to the public at large if you're allowed to do what you want with your own property. In theory, I can go along with this. But where do you draw the line? Where do things get silly?
Let me give you three examples:
Example one:
In the west, "land use" and "property rights" fights have been going on for decades. "How dare the damn new world order guvment tell me I can't do what I want with my own land! I own it! That gives me the absolute God-given right to stripmine it to the center of the earth and fill the hole with toxic waste if want to, by gum!" I've known ranchers who hold views this extreme. I've known ranchers who literally plowed up access roads on their property because the state passed a law saying that through-roads (roads connecting one publicly accessible road to another) had to be publicly accessible.
Example two:
In your own house, I'm willing to bet you have more than one cleaner with a label that reads "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling" or words to that effect. So here's a couple of household cleaning tips: #1 - The best bathtub cleaner in the world is to take liquid drain opener and brush it on all the surfaces then sprinkle it with a scouring powder that will form a sort of paste and hold the liquid in place. Let it sit for an hour (with windows open and good ventilation) then come back and scrub. You'd be amazed at some of the greasy, stained, crudded-up salvaged tubs and sinks I've rescued with this method. Tip #2 - This method is illegal. Consider that and consult your conscience before employing it.
Example three:
The New Jersey state legislature has proposed legislation designed to make repairing firearms so ridiculously burdensome that no one will do it. Check out this link.s What that means is that if the extractor (a $5, easily-replaceable part) on the 1911 Colt left to you by your grandfather breaks, you have to fill out forms and turn the gun over to the state police for examination (with no guarantee written into the law that they'll ever have to give it back to you) and jump through all sorts of other hoops to get the thing fixed in-state. Or just break the law, fix it yourself, and risk a $10,000 fine and 18 months in jail. What's that, you say? It's yours? It's legal to own? You think you should be able to repair stuff you own without going, hat-in-hand to the state police for permission and procedures? Not if enough legislators can be convinced that the public has an legitimate interest in what you do with your own private stuff.
Where I live, it's de facto illegal for me to paint my garage door without approval of a quasi-governmental committee. (It's called a "home owners association" and where I live, the state grants it major power over my life and property. YMMV.)
So your example of, basically, "Why shouldn't I be allowed to do what I want with my own property?" doesn't really hold water. Governments make rules that often forbid it. Men and women with badges and guns enforce those rules. Individuals enter into contracts that encumber them with silly rules because life is darn near impossible to get through otherwise if you live near other human beings.
So where do you draw the line? Do you refuse to have a credit card out of high-minded principle and a practical concern for your own privacy and then make an inconsiderate ass out of yourself, causing problems for those around you just so you can say you adhere to your principles? Do you become a hermit, squatting in a shack in the forest? Or do you do as I have done - figure out where you draw the line (I disagree with the ranchers in example 1 and the legislators in example 3, but will take my chances by continuing to violate the law as in example 2) and accept that life involves compromises and that it's really OK for the government to tell me I can't do certain things even if I wish they'd just leave me alone?
It's a tough lot of thinking you're getting yourself into when you decide to be aware of what's going on around you, when you lose your innocence of the greed that underlies so much of our rules of personal, professional, and business interaction. Sometimes I wish I had never started down that path.