Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Doesn't Protect Garage Door Remotes
bgood writes "A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that a univeral remote garage door opener does not violate the DMCA. "Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law," Judge Rebecca M. Pallmeyer said. "This was an attempt to expand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to where it had never gone before," said Andrea B. Greene, attorney for privately held Skylink, the manufacture of the garage door opener in question. "[This is] very good news for consumers." Additional coverage at Wired and Security Focus."
Windows Media Player can't play DVDs without a third party DVD decoder anyway. You can use it to watch DVDs, but only after installing something like PowerDVD or WinDVD.
They were using the reverse engineering clause in the DMCA u tard.
The only reverse engineering clause in the DMCA is this one, which specifically allows reverse engineering to produce an interoperable product:
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program 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, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
That's a double-jump because there's actual copyrighted material being protected by CSS...
What we've gotten out of this ruling is that a garage door opening signal code isn't art, and therefore can't enjoy a copyright. Therefore, it doesn't look good for a chip that emits a signal that communicates a message that equates to nothing more than "I'm made by Lexmark."
Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle recently introduced the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act to amend the DMCA to stop the most outrageous abuses of it.
Lexmark recently failed in their attempt misuse the DMCA to force out aftermarket ink cartridges that compete with their own overpriced products.
Now this case where a garage door opener maker wanted to abuse the law to force out a universal remote control maker.
I hope the failure of these companies to abuse the DMCA to enforce their monopolies is a sign that the courts and the legislature are waking up.The DMCA is a dirty word, both online and in meatspace. The DMCA is a flawed piece of law.
The DMCA is being used to stifle competition and to gag disclosures of security flaws. It is worded so broadly that it is invoked in many situations to which it logically should not apply. At the same time, it is worded so narrowly that things which should be exempted are not.
Material that is copyrighted becomes public domain after a certain period of time. When that time period is up, the material belongs to the public. This is a fact that is not mentioned often enough these days. We should not destroy rights and freedoms meant to be permanent in the name of protecting a copyright that is meant to be temporary.
The DMCA must be withdrawn or amended before it causes irreparable harm to our society. Whatever replaces it should acknowledge that our permanent Fair Use rights and our permanent right to free speech are far more important than a corporation's right to protect its temporary copyright.
Only on
Windows Media Player is not a DVD player. It only plays what you have codecs for, and you must install a DVD codec before WMP will play DVD's.
Secondly, anyone can remove WMP, it's easy. Also, nothing stops you from installing any other software.
And this is different from the past? I would argue this is the whole point of Constitutional checks and balances - to prevent dumb laws from infringing on rights. Since the judiciary has always been one of the primary components of this system, nothing has really changed for nearly 200 years. Judges are and have been the public's first line of defense against the government trampling on our rights.
I suggest reading about the "Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798" to see how important the judiciary is to preserving our rights.
> First of all, there's really no legitimate reason why you can't use the usual garage door remote.
Wrong. Maybe mine slipped off the visor and out the window while I was driving. Maybe I prefer my own. Maybe it opens my own door as well as my mother's. One opener instead of two clipped to the visor. Maybe I don't like the color of the original.
> And second, I've had someone break into my garage by using one of these things.
> I, for one, would like to see these devices outlawed.
Someone stole my girl friend's purse from my car by throwing a ball bearing at the window and grabbing it. The thought of calling for a ban on ball bearings never crossed my mind.
> Nothing of any value was stolen, thankfully, but it leads me to believe the only added benefits of these devices are to theives [sic].
Allow me to dispell this belief. That is incorrect.
> It's too bad the courts got this wrong.
The courts got it right. Chamberlain was attempting to enforce a monopoly by misapplying a law that doesn't apply.
> There's no legitimate uses for reverse engineering these devices.
I direct your attention to 17 USC(annotated) 1201(f). You may reverse engineer a technology for purposes of interoperability.
PS. Who the hell modded this guy funny?
Only on
Anyway, i think this sort of system exists elsewhere in the world, what is the status quo in the US? Does everyone just pay their own legal cost? So even if you win you're screwed?
I am not a lawyer (and to those who get annoyed when they see IANAL lines, you can get into quite a bit of trouble representing or even implying you're one when you're not), but:
It depends. Generally the courts won't award damages, though in certain circumstances they might (in certain circumstances you may have to pay the other sides costs even if you win; those costs are subtracted from your award). I don't think universal paying of the other side's costs is such a great idea anyway, and it's usually promoted by people who just don't know too much about the legal system but work themselves into a lather whenever they read a newspaper article about a high award.
There are several safeguards built into the system. In federal court, for example, there are restrictions placed upon the attorneys (under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if anyone cares) where they have to sign just about everything they submit to the court and can be held accountable if it turns out later to be false. If a complaint is obviously frivolous the judge can just dismiss it before the trial actually begins. And remember if you can't afford your own lawyer you get a state-appointed one, so it's not like you'll ever have no legal protection.
Sorry, but NO! This is not good news for the consumer. The fact that this has been thrown out is a return to sanity. The fact that this case went to trial is such bad news for a society that the direction it's heading is quite obvious. And if not obvious, at the very least somewhat leading.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
In a criminal case, you get your state appointed lawyer. In a civil case, you're screwed.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
You make an excellent point. But what if the law said that only the party that files the lawsuit is required to pay their opponent's legal fees if they lose? This seems like a pretty good way to discourage frivolous lawsuits.
Of course, that might also make the little guy less likely to file a lawsuit against a big company that wronged them (negligence, unsafe products, etc.), but this might be mitigated with a cap on the amount that the filing party has to pay.
IMHO, the best solution would be to actually enforce the existing laws that require parties to pay for thier opponent's legal fees in the case of frivolous lawsuits. The problem here is that it relies on a judge's interpretation of whether a suit is frivolous or not, and in my experience this turns out to be almost never. Maybe some standards could be put in place that define this more objectively?
Clearly this issue is a big problem, but it is not an easy problem to fix with legislation. It's critical that we balance the ability of little guys to sue huge conglomorates without fear (when warranted), yet strongly discourage stupid lawsuits. It's a hard nut to crack, and I don't know of any country that does it well. I've heard some claim that England has a good system, but IMHO that one is weighted unfairly against the little guy, though it does certainly discourage (almost all) lawsuits.
everything in moderation
Actually, the case was decided on "summary judgment," which is what happens when the facts of the case are not in dispute. The lawsuit was filed, and then since Chamberlain and Skyline agreed on the facts of the case- that Skyline had made a remote that worked with Chamberlain's doors- there was never a trial. They just asked the judge to rule without a trial, and she did.
So there was never a trial- the two parties asked a judge to read the briefs and make a decision.
If you are a custom PC builder or do not have a PC with a preinstalled DVD decoder, you can enable DVD playback in Windows Media Player for Windows XP on your PC with a low-cost, third-party DVD Decoder Pack for Windows XP. You have the choice of your DVD decoder manufacturer and solution. Click here to learn more.
First of all, there's really no legitimate reason why you can't use the usual garage door remote.
Unless the original is broken, or lost, or you have several vehicles.
And second, I've had someone break into my garage by using one of these things.
That is a security issue, not a copyright issue. The code to my garage is encoded using a 10-bit switch. Since anybody could open my garage in a reasonable period of time by simply trying all possible codes, I don't don't keep valuable items in my garage unless they are secured through some other means (i.e: vehicle key). If I wanted by garage to be more secure, I would purchase a garage door opener that used a more secure security mechanism. It's bad that your garage was broken into, but that dosen't mean I shouldn't be able to buy a replacement opener for mine.
I, for one, would like to see these devices outlawed.
Garages would still be broken into. If somebody wanted to get into my garage, they could simply pry/cut/break the key-switch off the door-frame and touch the two wires together.
There's no legitimate uses for reverse engineering these devices.
IMHO, not having a legitimate use is not sufficient reason to outlaw something. There is no legitimate reason for me to stand on the beach in November, dressed in a chicken costume while holding a laser-pointer. That dosen't mean I shouldn't be allowed to do so.
This is a case when the DMCA is right on.
Where was copyright law broken? There might be a patent violation if they copied something patented , but I don't see how copyright applies. IIRC, the courts have ruled in the past that you can't use copyright protection to protect an invention. (Something about the Sega Genesis and a specific sequence of commands required to initialize the console which Sega tried to use to lock-out third party game manufacturers.)
Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
1) the garage door opener sends a rolling key to the garage door. That's why newer openers don't have dip switches any more. They need to be "trained" by pressing a button on the opener then pressing the remote.
2) Good question, that would explain the ruling.
There is already a law on the books (I think it's a federal law) called "Rule 11." The defendant can appeal to the judge that a suit is frivolous and baseless. If the judge agrees, the one suing is required to pay the legal fees and of the defendant, and the case is dropped. Now that I reread it, it sounds like the *lawyers* have to pay the penalties...
Of course, if you want legal advice, talk to a real lawyer, and not some guy who's taken a half-semester of one class like me. Of course, this is Slashdot, so you should listen to crackpots like me as gospel, right?
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Friend of mine wanted to remove WindowsMediaPlayer9 (or whatever the latest) from his Win2003Server box, and guess what was needed: just get the standalone version (from microsoft.com) and use the .inf from that to uninstall.
After that you still have Windows Media Player 6. If you uninstall that too, then you also have to get rid of Windows Media Player 5, since they are all there.
Same procedure works in XP I think. The other option is to delete files and clean-up registry manually. Part of OS... yeah right..
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.