DMCA Invoked Against Garage Door Openers

This is obvious by Merkins · 2003-01-16 01:14 · Score: 4, Funny

It's an open and shut case.

Boom boom

This is good by Interfacer · 2003-01-16 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:This is good by frp001 · 2003-01-16 01:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Honestly... I pity you guys who live in USA, it seems that this stupid law (amongst others, like (C) length) and the dirty habit of sorting competition through court is going to kill off new business and innovation.
OTOH this is a good opportunity for emerging countries less regarding on these aspects.

--
May I use your sig please?
Re:This is good by jorlando · 2003-01-16 01:37 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't think so... I think that US will try to force simmilar legislation on other countries (by means of commercial treaties, intelectual properties agreements, etc).

Since the US is such a commercial and industrial giant most countries will change laws to not loose commercial oportunities and we'll get at, some point in the future, a estagnation in inovation (or at least, innovation that doesn't pay royalties to some IP-only company).

Brazil has some of it's plants patented by foreign companies, that used breachs in their country of origin to patent these plants as medicines as if they had discovered it's medicinal properties... someday I'll discover that some IP fscked company has patented guava-tree leafs as a medicine for stomachache and that is an inovative use, but that is as fact known in Brazil since the days of my grand-grand mother (and before that, probably) and nobody patented it (how do you patent common-sense or folklore?).

This is dishonest from a ethical point of view? Yes, but companies aren't known for being ethical, they exist to profit.

IP laws are popping from everywhere. I think that some day you'll have to pay a tax for saying "Mickey".

I pity the guys living in US, but I pity them 'cause I see that as what will come to the rest of the world. They are only suffering first, we're the next in line...
Re:This is good by $rtbl_this · 2003-01-16 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I think that some day you'll have to pay a tax for saying "Mickey".

That's just taking the mick... er... piss! I meant to say "piss" (well, assuming that doesn't get me sued by the brewers of Fosters).

--
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
Re:This is good by Gyan · 2003-01-16 01:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Brazil has some of it's plants patented by foreign companies, that used breachs in their country of origin to patent these plants as medicines as if they had discovered it's medicinal properties... someday I'll discover that some IP fscked company has patented guava-tree leafs as a medicine for stomachache and that is an inovative use, but that is as fact known in Brazil since the days of my grand-grand mother

The exact thing has happened to India. Ayurvedic medicine consisting of herbs has been patented in US whereas these compositions have been known in India for centuries.
Re:This is good by PhilHibbs · 2003-01-16 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

If those countries learn from the US experience (Lexmark, Chamberlain) and formulate their DMCA-like law so that it is less open to this kind of abuse, then there is a commercial advantage to basing your reverse-engineering business in those countries.
Re:This is good by russellh · 2003-01-16 03:18 · Score: 2

It's obvious that this law will be repealed, but not before some real pain. real pain. It's too bad.

--
must... stay... awake...
Re:This is good by Moofie · 2003-01-16 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Demonstrating, yet again, that no matter which T-Shirt they wear (one with a donkey or one with an elephant) THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU.

They don't care about your freedoms.
They don't care about your rights.
They only care about your money, and then only when it's not YOUR money anymore.

The ones with the donkey want to take away your money by legislative fiat, and the ones with an elephant want to take it away by unrestricted rampant commercialism.

You can argue as to which is a better way for them to take your money from you, but don't for a minute think that these people who rule us will allow you (or me) a voice.

Bread and circuses.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

This is good.... by Jaysyn · 2003-01-16 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:This is good.... by milo_Gwalthny · 2003-01-16 02:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Would this was so. But, note how long silly lawsuits have been going on and being ridiculed in the press with absolutely no action being taken by our 'representatives.' I would include a reference to a coffee-hot lawsuit except that defenders of the right to be stupid would start flaming me.

The US Congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate america, reporting directly to the Disney corporation. As long as they can get away with having their cake (money from corporations) and eating it too (getting reelected by the voters they are screwing) they will. It stands to nature, at least the corrupt cesspool-like nature of anyone who would become a politician.

One solution: vote. And ask questions of the people you are voting for, like: who, exactly, do you plan to represent? Me, or NYSE:DIS?

--
Milo
Re:This is good.... by TygerFish · 2003-01-16 02:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think that the silly lawsuits are a valid cause for enthusiasm.

Our age didn't invent the stupid law or the weird implementation. Our age did not give birth to the damned silly lawsuit. The root of the problem is not the time in which we live, but the deterioration of the values of American politicians to which our age is witness.

It's a fascinating paradox: now, in an age with never-before-imaginable possibilities for public scrutiny of political actions, American politicians have become brazen in their pandering to special interests that run counter to the public good.

As Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion in yesterday's Supreme Court cited, an inventor had lobbied congress for a patent extension in the 1790's, not long after the laws governing patents had been given their initial form. Steven's citation notes that the inventor successfully lobbied congress for an extension of his patent, but Stevens noted that it took the man years to gather the support needed to make Congress grant his extension--an extension which Stevens opines was unconstitutional.

Contrast the men of those Congressional sessions with the people behind the DMCA and the sickening Sonny-Bonno extension, and you see the actions of men who don't see themselves as public servants, or as honorable men with the heritage of a nation to protect. Looked at this way, it's all intellectual clear-sailing and there is nothing surprising at all to be found in a law that facilitates lawsuits that raise the cost of innovation against the public interest.

Basically, 'they're creeps. They don't care. The results are not surprising.

--
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Re:This is good.... by Dun+Malg · 2003-01-16 03:07 · Score: 3, Informative

I would include a reference to a coffee-hot lawsuit except that defenders of the right to be stupid would start flaming me
OK, then how about I flame you for not knowing the reason for the big award in the hot coffee lawsuit:
Woman spills hot coffee in her lap and gets big $$$. Sounds absurd, but McDonald's was not just an innocent vendor of coffee who failed to warn a customer not to put the coffee cup in her lap. No, the problem was the McDonald's was heating the coffee water to 190 degrees in order to get more yield from a given quantity of coffee grounds. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but they were serving the coffee at 190 degrees. Anything over 160 degrees is dangerous. At 190 degrees, burns are practically guaranteed. At 190 degrees, styrofoam will become soft. You see where this is leading? McDonald's had been warned numerous times in the past not to serve their coffee that hot, but they continued. Then someone got hurt and required a lot of expensive reconstructive surgery. McDonald's claimed it was her own fault for putting the coffee cup in her lap. The judge, however, seeing that McDonalds knew 190 degree coffee was dangerous, but decided to negligently endanger customers in order to maximize profit ruled against them. He levied punitive damages equal to five days' coffee sales, which turned out to be several million dollars. McDonald's no longer serves their coffee at 190 degrees, but it took more than just warnings to make them stop. It took a big punitive damage hit.
This case, I think, is one of the few cases where the system actually worked, and it just frosts me that people still think that it was a frivolous lawsuit with McDonald's as the innocent victim.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:This is good.... by poot_rootbeer · 2003-01-16 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative

I would include a reference to a coffee-hot lawsuit except that defenders of the right to be stupid would start flaming me.

OOPS, TOO LATE!

The only ones exercising their right to be stupid in the 'infamous' McDonald's hot coffee case were McDonald's themselves.

If McD's had been free of fault, the woman spilling coffee on her lap would have only resulted in mild discomfort and stained clothing. Instead, she got serious burns and required immediate medical attention. If she had tried to drink the coffee, she would have damaged her mouth and throat quite badly.

Do you deserve to have the skin on your genitals peel off for a single act of clumsiness? Of course not, no one does. McD's was sued and punished because their behavior was unsafe and led to injury. It was a completely legitimate lawsuit.

The FAT people suing FAsT food chains because they didn't know eating FAT would make them FAT, on the other hand...
Re:This is good.... by Mitreya · 2003-01-16 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, aside from having no sense of humor, you don't really seem to have any sense. I wouldn't have made the comment if I hadn't read the innumerable screeds written by people like yourself on this very topic.
I am one of those people with no sense, clearly. But let me put it this way -- the "hot cofee" lawsuit was not based on any dubious laws (such as DMCA). The *judge* decided that McDonalds was negligent and has to pay. And all things being equal a judge is a guy who makes a living doing exactly that: judging. Thus regardless of how compentent he is, he is more competent than you or me.
Oh, yeah, and if you were to start a lawsuit that knifes are sharp or heights are high or that your mood is bad, it would get tossed out... don't believe me? try it.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Old+Wolf · 2003-01-16 01:16 · Score: 5, Funny

They fight against US laws restricting freedom of speech...

Oh how the tables have turned

I wouldn't be surprised... by Mals · 2003-01-16 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

If universal tv remote manufacturers are next on the list to be hit by the DMCA

Does actually make some sense... by boaworm · 2003-01-16 01:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

... because it seems a universal garage opener could be used for ill purposes, like opening someone elses garage and steal his stuff, or close the garage port onto someones car when driving in/out. Sounds like making a universal key that can unlock any lock... that wouldn't be appreciated either, would it ?

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

Re:Does actually make some sense... by jdreed1024 · 2003-01-16 01:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

because it seems a universal garage opener could be used for ill purposes, like opening someone elses garage and steal his stuff,
Not really. Universal garage door openers have a bunch of DIP switches that you need to set to match the frequency and manufacturer of the receiver. I have a Skylink universal opener, and there is one DIP switch for the frequency setting, 8 for the manufacturer, and 8 for the code. Do the math. It would take a long time to try each combination, and I think most people, if they noticed some guy in a car sitting in front of their house for a while, would call the cops.
Thieves do exploit automatic garage door openers, but there are more sophisticated devices that simply scan and capture the signal from a legitimate transmitter and use that to open the door. (That's why most new garage door openers have rolling codes - so the same signal isn't accepted twice in a row).
i dont think you can make a universal key
Yes you can. It's called a master key. You have to be a locksmith, or be really good at social engineering to get one. And it only works for a subset of models of a specific brand of lock. 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.
Anyway, back to remotes. This is ridiculous. Skylink is filling a market that wouldn't otherwise exist. When the remote for our garage door opener crapped out (well, it broke in half, but that's another story), I went to get a new one. Quoth the company (after about an hours worth of phone tag) "No, sorry, we don't make replacement remotes for those anymore. Why don't you try a universal remote?"
I think The Chamberlain Group doesn't actually give a shit about patent infringement (which is what this is about - go read the case). I think what we're seeing in this case, and with Lexmark, and with the many more cases that will come, is the result of desperation. These companies are looking for a quick buck in hard economic times and understandably so. The DMCA has given them a great tool with which to make this quick buck. Now, if Skylink was some new fly-by-nite company from China that was ripping off these remotes, I'd have a little more sympathy for the Chamberlain Group. But they're not. Skylink has been around since _at least_ 1993 (that I know of), and probably longer. There are Skylink products on the shelf of every Home Depot in the country, and they've been there for 5 years (that I know of). I sincerely hope the judge tells The Chamberlain Group to fuck off, but I suspect he won't.

--
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:Does actually make some sense... by Izang · 2003-01-16 01:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Universal does not mean that it can open any garage at will. Universal means that it has the ability to be securely trained by different systems. Unless you have access to the garage door opener (the motor and circuit board in the ceiling in the garage) then you cannot program any kind of remote.

Garage door openers use code hopping and many other kinds of security. The days of CB and dip switch hacking to open garage doors are over. So, yes, this lawsuit is pure bull. It is not about making remotes that bypass the security. It is about making cheap universal remotes that compete with the $67.00 Gene(tm) replacement remote that you lost somewhere in the landscaping.
Re:Does actually make some sense... by Scorchio · 2003-01-16 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...
Re:Does actually make some sense... by parkrrrr · 2003-01-16 07:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

(who want's to carry around a keyring with 500 keys when you're building a housing development or a condo complex)
Or, oh, here's an idea, the one general contractors actually use: you don't install the customer's lockset until you're finished with the building. That protects the customer's shiny new brass-like doorknob from those lazy subs who can't bother to wash the paint off their hands, and coincidentally allows you to use your vast collection of keyed-alike locksets in all of the houses you're currently working on.
Oh, so the customer needs to (regularly) come by and check on the progress of his new house while you're not there? No problem! Put his shiny new lockset on the back door, or the door into the garage, and require the subs to enter and exit via the front door.
(My experience: I just changed a "low-end" Schlage deadbolt. Before I threw out the old lock I removed all of the pins, since it was keyed to match other locks in the same house. Exactly 10 tiny pieces of metal (and 5 springs) fell out of the cylinder when I unscrewed the back. That means there was one shear line, the one that corresponds to the homeowner's key.)
Re:Does actually make some sense... by ross.w · 2003-01-16 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

When my house was built, all the external locks were installed with a system that allows the builder to use his master key in them, until the owner inserts his own key, which disables the part that recognises the builder's key forever.

I'm not sure how this works, but it means the builder can issue keys to his subcontractors without creating security issues for the homeowner later.

Plus the same master key can work in all the builder's current projects.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?

Universal Remotes by attobyte · 2003-01-16 01:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-16 01:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Won;t open... they're using a universal remote :)

The complaints are contradictory by The+Monster · 2003-01-16 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

First they claim that the remote infringes on their patent for the 'Rolling Code' system, then they turn around and claim that the remotes do NOT in fact generate Rolling Codes, but instead send the same code each time.

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.

Re:The complaints are contradictory by outlier · 2003-01-16 02:15 · Score: 5, Informative

yeah. It looks like the skylink sends a resynchronize signal to the garage door, then uses the default code to open it. (page 7 of the motion to dismiss pdf file)

The claim is that by 'rebooting' the garage system and then using guest:guest instead of dealing with the standard password system, skylink is circumventing their protection to a copyrighted work.

So, it's like having a building with a super-duper unpickable lock on the front door, but with an unlocked door on the side.

My questions:
1. could using this 'side door' be considered circumvention under the orginal (misguided) spirit of the law?

2. Where's the copyrighted work? They seem to claim it is the rolling code algorithm, but the rolling code program is never accessed. Maybe they'll claim that they've copyrighted the inside of my garage... Maybe lexmart can get in on the deal if I start keeping my printer cartridges inside my garage.

I don't think the DMCA was mentioned in any of the earlier filings. It looks to be a patent infringement case that some overzealous lawyer figured he'd add this cool DMCA thing to.
Re:The complaints are contradictory by andyt · 2003-01-16 03:10 · Score: 2, Funny

So, it's like having a building with a super-duper unpickable lock on the front door, but with an unlocked door on the side.

AKA "Helmsdeep"? :-)
Re:The complaints are contradictory by TheMidget · 2003-01-16 03:18 · Score: 3, Informative

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,
"Rolling Code" systems have a feature that a wrong code will reset the receiver to the value sent.
Says the door is expecting codes in the following sequence A B C D E F. Currently, the garage door is expecting C. You press the button on your remote, it sends C. Now suppose that due to some mishap, this is not received. A next press would send D which the garage door would reject, bceause it is out of sequence. Thus, a simple bodged transmission would forever desynchronize the garage door and the receiver. In order to avoid this, a bad code resets the receiver. After sending your D, the garage stays shut, but will reset itself so as to expect E next time. A next press on the operner will send E, which matches.
The way those universal remotes work is that you have to press the button on your real opener twice when recording. When using it, the universal remote will play the two sequential codes back as recorded: the first code resets the receiver, and the second opens the door!
That way, the universal remote "works" in the sense that it does open the door, but it removes any security associated with the "rolling code" scheme: a burglar who sets up a sniffing device near the door now gets two sequential codes, and can open the door too!
Re:The complaints are contradictory by tcc · 2003-01-16 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative

I actually bought an "encrypted" system that sits on top of an older garage door opening system that doesn't have any code rolling after my car got stolen in my garage. The way it works is you map the "button" wire to that receiver device, sync it's encrypted remote to it and then it's basically a relay that "presses the button" with an encrypted link.

I Was trying to find articles about how secure it was, if there was any backdoors (like, ANY flaws that any good car thief would know about and render the whole system completely useless).

Thanks to slashdot, I won't be able to sleep until I finish wiring the alarm system in the garage as well :).

DMCA or not, if a company claims their device is 100% secure, you should have the TOTAL FREEDOM to either post the flaw publicly or ask them for a compensation to keep your mouth shut (I like that idea). It's not extortion, since their claims are false and they are giving a false sense of security to the people who are buying such systems. Don't make claims if they aren't true. Period.

--
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Re:The complaints are contradictory by Datafage · 2003-01-16 05:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, that makes it amusingly weak for a smart thief, even without the universal opener. Thief sits back and sniffs code from OEM opener. After person leaves home, resend that same code, guaranteeing the opener and receiver are at different stages on the sequence. Sniff again when the person gets home and has to use two consecutive codes to get the door open. Now you have the codes you need for access. Sure, it's a bit of trouble, but it could be worth it for some car thieves.

--
Nicotine free Amish .sig.

Re:Nice troll, Michael by benevold · 2003-01-16 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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.

Is the DMCA retroactive? by uncleFester · 2003-01-16 01:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

HAND? by Doctor+Hu · 2003-01-16 01:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Admittedly, the hand I use to open my own garage door could be considered a digital device, but I thought that living organisms could only be patented, not copyrighted.

--
"Observation collapsed the wave function of the experimental subject to a deceased state" - Schroedinger

Maybe not by kiwimate · 2003-01-16 01:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Hardly Informative by DeadSea · 2003-01-16 01:27 · Score: 4, Informative

The link is hardly informative. It gives no extra information at all.

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.

Re:Hardly Informative by binaryDigit · 2003-01-16 02:01 · Score: 3, Informative

The link is hardly informative. It gives no extra information at all.

What do you mean not informative, follow the links provided in the links to see the actual court filings with have ALL the information.

The original complaint
The amended complaint
The summary judgement motion

The transition by IPFreely · 2003-01-16 01:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Things like this show the transition in IP usage. When the Patent office can't or won't grant someone a patent (as if that ever happens), then the submittor changes to copyright law, and claims whatever they have is copyrighted instead. The standard for copyright has been streached to cover soo much, so just about anything can be claimed to be copyrightable.

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.

Does this make my palm pilot illegial? by xombo · 2003-01-16 01:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Does this make my palm pilot illegial? by will_die · 2003-01-16 01:38 · Score: 2, Informative

If would be if the the signal from remote to the tv was encrypted. As it is currently tv companies don't encrypt thier signals.
And when this case is wrong by the company bringing the case, I don't think many tv manufacters will bother to do so since the market for additional remotes is not big enough to hassel the customer about.

I think this case could help my mother understand by GeekWithGuns · 2003-01-16 01:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:

The DMCA charge fails because of the reverse engineering parts of the law. - DUH!
The plantif drops that charge and goes after something else and wins on that. DMCA dosen't get its day in court like it needs.
This whole thing gets thrown out because it was just silly to begin with.

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

All Your Base Indeed... by The+Tyro · 2003-01-16 01:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:All Your Base Indeed... by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2003-01-16 03:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Funny, I thought the DMCA was only for circumventing security measures for "copyrighted works". Can anyone clarify this?

Let me see if I can make this more clear. Company A does not like competition from company B. What company B did makes company A look bad. Big money can be had. So let's use our new toy, the wonderful universal do-anything tool... The DMCA. It slices, it dices, it is so versatile.

Summary: big money is involved. Therefore the DMCA can be used to do anything. What the original motivation for the law was, or the letter of the law is, is irrelevant. Is that any more clear?

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Re:All Your Base Indeed... by zentigger · 2003-01-16 05:21 · Score: 4, Funny

We actually have a criminal charge for jokers like this in Canada. It's called mischief. The idea is that someone must be able to show that there is some merrit, and the law somehow applies to their case before they file suit. Usually this is accomplished by consulting a lawyer.

I beleive that contempt of court charges can also be applied in a case where someone brings a case before a judge and the judge is forced to publicly laugh at their stupidity.

--
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

Who needs a universal garage door remote, anyway? by algernon7 · 2003-01-16 01:33 · Score: 2, Funny

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?

Hmm... by BJH · 2003-01-16 01:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Different look by IgD · 2003-01-16 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Sure, you can have guns... by GigsVT · 2003-01-16 01:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

Encryption Escalation? by Cheap+Imitation · 2003-01-16 01:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does this mean each garage door manufacturer is going to come out with their own unique remote signal? Will we soon hear television ads proclaiming the new DoorUp2005 supports a 128bit encrypted remote to keep terrorists out of your garage?

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!

"the general public"? by sirshannon · 2003-01-16 01:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Can I use the DMCA? by milktoastman · 2003-01-16 01:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Let's say I go to radio shack and buy a blue project box, a few indicator lights, and a couple logic gates, a couple of push switches, and digital audio recording chip.

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?

Re:unfortunately by dismentor · 2003-01-16 01:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

er...Key Gun (Rakes the pins automatically)? Lock Picks? Sure, the general public can't get those. For a start, copyrighting the encyrption algorithm effectively gives the company controlling the door openers a monopoly on the remotes, once you have installed the actual door opener in your garage; does this sound similar to anything at all (Hint: starts with an 'M')? Secondly, as cryptoanalysts well know, the security of a message should not depend on the secrecy of the algorithm, only on the secrecy of the keys involved; copyright is no protection, because obviously the criminals that try to break it will abide by that.

If you do agree, you are just not thinking hard enough; this is a stupid law; don't be convinced otherwise

Master Lock vs. AA Locksmith by Froobly · 2003-01-16 01:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Re:Master Lock vs. AA Locksmith by binaryDigit · 2003-01-16 02:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

This seems analagous to a lock company suing a locksmith for duplicating keys (assuming these keys don't say "do not duplicate" on them)

I think what Chamberlin is saying is that their GDO technology effectively has "do not duplicate" on it, and Skylink is simply ignoring it.

Plus the key copying example isn't really a good analogy in this case, since in order to make a copy of a physical key, you must first POSSESS the physical key (well I know not necessarily, but in the most common use case you do). Therefore it wouldn't make any sense to be able to sue someone who creates a dupe of a key since the person wanting the dupe already has a working key in possession. A better example (though still not perfect) would be that of a locksmith who sold MASTER keys to anyone.

Bleak outlook... by BrodieBruce · 2003-01-16 01:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

From Declan's email:

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:

What the hell is DRM?
Why didn't we use the word paradigm at the end of DMCA? The more buzzwords, the fewer calls from constituents I'll get.
Alright, let me pull up my sleeve so I can see the note on my arm regarding which way the lobbyist told me to vote.
Man, we need some more hot, permiscuous interns.
Oh crap, my ass just fell asleep. I'd better get up there and filibuster for a while to get it to wake up.

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.

In related news... by KeyserDK · 2003-01-16 01:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:What about the retailers of the Universal Devic by MImeKillEr · 2003-01-16 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

The tech... by mt-biker · 2003-01-16 01:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?)

DCMA violated, garage receiver insecure! by chiark · 2003-01-16 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

Initial Musings on Commerce and Property by Effugas · 2003-01-16 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Initial Musings on Commerce and Property by Effugas · 2003-01-16 02:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
Re:Initial Musings on Commerce and Property by BenEnglishAtHome · 2003-01-16 03:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's illegal for me to remove this stuff? Isn't it mine?

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.
Re:Initial Musings on Commerce and Property by BenEnglishAtHome · 2003-01-16 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree that it's not a bad trade. That's why I live where I do. My point was only that we have to make these decisions all the time. Sometimes we stick to principle. Sometimes we compromise.

And sometimes things don't work out worth a damn, anyway. Despite the fairly reasonable deed restrictions in my neighborhood, a guy rented the house next to me that simply didn't care about them. He literally parked his backhoe on his lawn. He literally ran his trailered backhoe into cars parked on the street and then told the owners that that they deserved it for parking on the street. He said he frequently towed big trailers, everyone knew it, everyone knew that he was liable to hit anything on the street, and therefore it wasn't his fault if their cars got dented.

And he had a great habit of coming home drunk at 3AM, firing up his *extremely* loud Harley, and revving the shit out of the engine for about five minutes - just long enough to wake up the entire block but not long enough for the police to get there.

What happened when the HOA started sending him letters? He immediately filed suit against the HOA, the members of the board individually, and the management company alleging all the actions taken against him were a result of racial discrimination because he had a biracial child. Funny thing is - living next to him, I know that he didn't move his child in with him until after he started getting the letters.

The HOA was cowed. When our lawyers found out that he had previously been charged with murder (charges were dropped, btw), all the residents just started hiding in their homes and avoiding the guy.

Two weeks ago, he moved out. According to the homeowner, his lease was up and he just couldn't make the rent anymore. I breathed a sigh of relief that two years of hell and sleeping with ear plugs had ended.

My point? HOAs suck. They have far too much power (depending on jurisdiction) over good residents who try to obey the rules. They have far too little practical ability to deal with serious problems.

My apologies for the OT rant.

I know what Slashdotters are afraid of loosing :-) by Jugalator · 2003-01-16 01:56 · Score: 3, Funny

What does this tell of the lifestyle of /.-ers? :-)

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 .....
..ass bigntime. What is next? Universal TV remotes?

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!

Don't foget by hoagieslapper · 2003-01-16 02:05 · Score: 2, Funny

And don't forget about IBM and their Universal Bussiness Adapter.

You did miss something by MemeRot · 2003-01-16 02:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.....

Re:You did miss something by gorilla · 2003-01-16 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's becoming a rule that the DMCA is used whenever the original company does something really stupid.
Re:You did miss something by captainclever · 2003-01-16 02:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is a list of numbers even copyrightable? I wouldn't think so.....
it would seem riciculous that a sequence of numbers, or number, can be copyrighted...but isn't that massive long prime used in CSS encryption copyrighted? you're not allowed to host code with it in anyway..

--
Last.fm - join the social music revolution
Re:You did miss something by j-turkey · 2003-01-16 02:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

They say they spent tons of money building this Rolling Code system, and that homeowners absolutely depend on its security.

I sure hope that they did not spend too much on that rolling code system. It sounds like a freaking joke:

The rolling code changes with each actuation of the transmitter and increases by three. The computer program in the transmitter encrypts the identification code and rolling code by a scrambling algorithm that scrambles the binary digits representing the identification code and the rolling code.

OK, so let's assume that the rolling code is a 6-digit number. It only changes when the garage door is opened, and the only change is that the rolling code is incremented by three. I'd bet dollars to dimes that the scrambling algorithm is simply an xor of the identification code and the rolling code. Meaning that only one known value is necessary (your identification code) to derive the other (the current state of the rolling code). Keep in mind that I'm no cryptographer (IANAC), but judging from their description of the cryptosystem, its only a half-step up from rot-13.

That's not encryption...its a slight mathematical obfuscation. Maybe the DMCA would be a bit less unfair if there were a distinction made on this one.

--Turkey

--

-Turkey
Re:You did miss something by hyperturbopete · 2003-01-16 02:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, their crappy implementation turns this into a classic case of 'security through obscurity' vs DMCA. :-(

--
SUV's support terrorism !
Re:You did miss something by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2003-01-16 03:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is a list of numbers even copyrightable? I wouldn't think so.....

Okay, I've got this list of numbers for you. Each number is between 0 and 255. What possible use could you put this list of numbers to? Try this just for fun. Make a file of bytes represented by these numbers. Name the file Windows2000.iso. I think you can figure out what to do next.

I wish lists of numbers weren't copyrightable. After all, all Napster did was broker the exchange of lists of numbers. They didn't even exchange the numbers themselves.

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Re:You did miss something by SpoonMeiser · 2003-01-16 03:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't you legally allowed to reverse engineer interfaces for the sake of compatability anyway? Or does this not apply here?

--
--
Hollywood representatives have publicly stated that skipping commercials is "stealing."
Re:You did miss something by uradu · 2003-01-16 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

> you could enter the serial number of the opener into the remote

Except that that would complicate the UI of the remote (requiring at least 10 digit keys) and invite data entry errors--heck, some people can't even dial a 7-digit number without misdialling. Garage door openers usually require you to "register" a remote with the opener by pressing a button on the opener while pressing the remote button. This could be modified so that pressing the registration button on the opener makes it transmit a shared key to the remote via low-power INFRARED to lower the possibility of someone snooping the key. They could also use a direct connection instead of IR (maybe some contacts on the opener that the remote is pressed against), but low data rate IR is so damn cheap that cost shouldn't be an issue.

DMCA 80's style by ryber · 2003-01-16 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

And people laughed by eaddict · 2003-01-16 02:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

DMCA? How about patent infringement by binaryDigit · 2003-01-16 02:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:Nice troll, Michael by LostCluster · 2003-01-16 02:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Who needs a universal garage door remote, anywa by Zathrus · 2003-01-16 03:22 · Score: 2

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.

Straw man? by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-01-16 03:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seems as though you're setting up a straw man, and I'm not surprised that you succeeded in knocking it down.

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!

...but judging from their description of the cryptosystem...

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.)

...its only a half-step up from rot-13.

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.

Re:Straw man? by operagost · 2003-01-16 03:59 · Score: 3, Funny

I'd say XOR is a minor fifth up from rot-13
That would have to be a diminished fifth. ;-)

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Straw man? by miu · 2003-01-16 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Nothing wrong with XOR, it is a primitive op in many symetric systems. The weakness lies in what you XOR against.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:Straw man? by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-01-16 10:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, you're right. What I mean to say was that XOR against a fixed key used to encrypt several messages, as jturkey suggested, is woefully easy to crack (although ahead of ROT-13 in that it *has* a secret key). I am quite aware that its use in, say, a one-time pad is (literally, if your RNG is good) perfectly secure.

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

Theives don't use the door opener.. by mcdade · 2003-01-16 03:50 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

Common sense vs. laws to protect ourselves by TimeTrav · 2003-01-16 05:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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]

DMCA adopted by EU by Per+Abrahamsen · 2003-01-16 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Heres the illegal prime link by captainclever · 2003-01-16 05:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Hi, there's a bit on the web about it, check out this link, it seems the DMCA can "outlaw" numbers :)
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Stego/i llegal-primes.html
RJ

--
Last.fm - join the social music revolution

No... by No+Such+Agency · 2003-01-16 06:37 · Score: 2, Funny

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!"

not the same by MemeRot · 2003-01-16 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

One legitimate complaint by phriedom · 2003-01-16 12:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

DMCA Invoked Against Garage Door Openers

89 of 480 comments (clear)