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."
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
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.