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."
Can you replace Windows media Player with some 3rd-party (DVD) player?
Only a few years ago it was obvious that you can figure out how a piece of hardware works and tell your friends about it. Now every manufacturer is suing practically anybody who just dares to have a peek inside their product.
The owls are not what they seem
Is some company storing their copyrighted material in my garage now?
And many of my fellow coworkers were digusted to hear of upper managements pursuit of this lawsuit. Many of us are thinking of quiting.
I think it would be important that a consumer can watch a DVD on a competing OS...
I think it is somewhat depressing that anyone with a lawyer and no conscience can try to force us into the most ridiculous legal situations purely for the hell (and profit) of it. What a complete waste of time, tax dollars and effort by all concerned to try to force consumers into an unfair position.
Why don't they just make their replacement either
1. Cheap enough so the competition isn't worth looking at
2. Of such high quality that ditto.
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
My best friend used to live across town. One day, I discovered our remote operated his garage door too. So for about a month, whenever I drove by his house, I opened his door. Only when somebody was obvisously home of course. My friend laughed his butt off when he found out but thank god he never told his parents.
that the DMCA is going to be used to squash a competing product. As long as it's on the books it's going to be used willy-nilly on anything remotely related to so-called IP rights.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
IANAL, but couldn't this ruling be cited in defense of unauthorized DVD players / DeCSS? The basic principle is the same - I own a whole bunch of DVDs, if my current player breaks, I should be able to obtain a new player for them however I like. Even if it's for my Linux installation.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Well, we've just found the boundaries of the DMCA. It covers everything in the house, the garage, but not, repeat not, the garage door :-)
This presumably means that automated sprinkler systems for the lawn also lie outside the DMCA, but IANAL.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Where does this illogical line of 'reasoning' stop. I understand that some people don't want their hard work and money being taken out from under their nose, but the idea that reverse engineering a product should be criminally prosecutable is ridiculous. Let them get a patent on the darned things if they're so special.
JGG
I love it when things we want are taken away and things we don't need are give back to us.
A universal garage door opener? Can that play mp3's?
Pallmeyer's quote instantly brought something like this to mind:
The Internet. The Final Free Frontier. This is the the 5 year mission of US Enterprises, their continuing mission to seek out new copyright abuses and new violations, to boldly extend the DMCA where it has never been extended before!
[Queue 64kps mp3 of Star Trek music]
Alas, if only the DMCA were badly written science fiction...
that we must now have our rights placed at the mercy of such a nebulous law where a moron Judge might inadvertently take away a freedom from us.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
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.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but this has nothing to do with the article. If anything, this story is a shining example of our U.S. Justice System constraining the DMCA to what it was intended for. It should RESTORE one's faith, not shatter it!
I can't recall properly as to whether or not this kind of logic was applied to printer cartidges yet. But the same kind of idea would apply there.
I really don't care much for these people. I mean, you bring their product into your home for whatever your reason is (usually because it's the most financially prudent) and then they try to force you to pay out the nose forever and ever simply because you bought their product. It's just tantamount to someone coming into your house and telling you what you can and can't buy, these sort of strong arm tactics that are the byproduct of an overtly litigious society just show the ways that the free market eats itself up. You have huge corporations claiming that their patents need to be protected or else their innovation will be stifled, when they just use those patent laws to go off and further stifle innovation.
Seriously folks, I don't know where the people that pass these laws and run these companies were educated, but they were ripped off, because they surely didn't learn what the hell a free market was. It isn't that hard people, it's a market where you have a bunch of goods and people can buy whatever they want, that's all it is. Not a market where you can force people to only buy from you after they already bought something from you.
I'm announcing my new combo garage door opener and Linux-based DVD player!
I don't agree with this decision, and the courts got this one wrong. There's a few reasons why I say this, and why it's different than the traditional abuses of the DMCA.
First of all, there's really no legitimate reason why you can't use the usual garage door remote. One of the guidelines when making an important decision like this is "do consumers somehow lose functionality of the product or the ability to use it" by enforcing the DMCA? The garage door opener remote provided by the company is in no way crippled. The consumer does not lose by not being able to purchase universal garage door remotes. In fact, the universal remotes for household devices such as TVs are often crippled and have significant less functionality.
And second, I've had someone break into my garage by using one of these things. Nothing of any value was stolen, thankfully, but it leads me to believe the only added benefits of these devices are to theives. I, for one, would like to see these devices outlawed.
It's too bad the courts got this wrong. There's no legitimate uses for reverse engineering these devices. Also, my experience with the companies that make garage door openers is they're more than happy to provide replacement remotes at a very low cost. This is a case when the DMCA is right on.
Yhis is great news. Now if I only had a garage.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
I love how multi million dollar issues that set precedent possibly influencing the course of civilization can be decided on the stringent legal criteria equivalent to "that seems kinda fair to me"...
Replace the dip switch inside the door opener with a 555 timer/counter circuit. Good times :)
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
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.
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
If there are few enough codes that two doors within the same neighborhood are operated by the same remote, there's a pretty good chance that a thief could get a remote and drive around town, trying systematically to activate garage doors.
...)
If somebody cleaned out my garage because of poorly designed security, you bet I would sue the company (or I would certainly tell my insurance adjuster to look into it).
Maybe they will start making you sign an EULA when you get a door installed. (No warranties, expressed or implied
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
You know, it is possible to hate both Bush and Clinton. Not equally of course, but just because a person thinks Bush is a drooling moron whose history proves he isn't qualified to run a peanut stand at the elephant house doesn't mean that same person rolls over and spreads'em wide for Clinton.
Clinton did a lot of things I didn't approve of at the time, and told people so. Bush is just that much worse.
Don't perpetuate the either/or logical fallacy.
Posted as an anonymous idiot because 1) I'm responding to a troll and 2) it's off topic.
"Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law,"
IANAL, so I'm wondering how this statement is inapplicable to ink cartridges. It seems to me that a judge sitting on another bench would be unable to make a distinction between this precedent as it applies to one product over another.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
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.
I'm going to build a universal remote then cruise the 'hood at 3am openning everyone's garage door and you can't do a DMCA thing to stop me!
And he probably meant "Cue" rather than "queue".
Thus, if a component of a product you own, like a car or something, breaks down, it is illegal for you to get a replacement part from any source, however derived, other than the original copyright holder of that part, even if said original copyright holder has gone out of business and/or no longer exists. It would even be illegal for you to obtain a replacement that was made by that source but sold or given to you by someone else (in other words, you could not go to a junk yard and disassemble the part from another car, because that is piracy). This would be good for consumers because it directly coincides with the noble, good, and correct line of thinking that led to that fine law known as the DMCA.
Oh yeah, and people should be put into prison upon being born, because that is human genome piracy.
If the DCMA can be defended against by Consumers have a reasonable expectation, then I think we would all be a lot safer from the DCMA. Somehow I think this concept is going to be limited to cases where the company claiming the DCMA doesn't have much cash to lube the wheels of justice.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I would rather see it applied to everything so that the politicians realize the nightmare that they have created.
Or, better yet, have a judge simply throw it out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If this had gone through, the next step could have been software. If you cannot use a 3rd party openner for a garage door, then you cannot use "unauthorized" extensions for software. Next thing you know M$ would be sueing people who made skinners for windows. What about making a GUI front-end for software? Can't do that, as that is not how the software was intended to work :(
Learn about Photography Basics.
Wasn't Lexmark trying to do do something like this? Did they win that lawsuit? How is this different than trying to force people to buy their print cartridges? I bought a Lexmark just before that started happening. I would have never bought one if I knew about that
And keep in mind that this sort of "judicial activism" on the part of federal judges is precisely the sort of thing that gets the right wing's panties in a bunch.
None of the troglodytes that Bush is packing the bench with would have come to this decision. In fact some of them (notably Pryor) maintain that constitutional rights should be subject to majority rule and can rightfully be yanked by a majority in the legislature for any reason.
Thank you, Jesus Christ, for liberal activist judges.
A lot of people have complained that the DMCA and cases like this destroy the free economy. Well guess what, it still is a free economy.
:)
If a certain company makes it illegal for you to use a universal remote, then that is a strong downside to their product. Think of it as a feature (in the case of TVs for sake of argument: TV 1 supports HDTV and universal remotes, TV 2 supports HDTV, but you will be sued if you try to use a universal remote on it. Well, I think i'd buy TV 1. That's the free economy for you
Likewise with printers: if printer A won't let me use cheaper 3rd party cartridges, then I'm not going to buy their printer.
no comment
Does this mean I can replace my original copy of PowerDVD's Trial version with an Open Source DVD driver? I'd love to see someone try it and use this case as a precident.
Huh??? You *don't* need DeCSS to copy a DVD. dd will do it. The copy program need not know what it is copying. You only need DeCSS to play a DVD, which is perfectly legit.
Oh well, what the hell...
Isn't the name of the thing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?
If so, tell me
1.) How a garage door or garage door opener uses a digital signal.
2.) What copyrighted material was accessable after the alleged violation.
~Will
sig?
Anyone who believes that has no clue what OOP is about. OOP principles, which are about how data is handled and manipulated within a program, have nothing to do with file formats, which is (primarily) about how data is stored when the program is not running.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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?
No, I oversimplified.
You need DeCSS to copy a DVD to a video file that can easily be redistributable and read by people with no legitimate right to use it. It also forms an essential part of that process. Without DeCSS, this will not be possible. While it would also not be possible to do this without various other parts of the infrastructure, (e.g. FTP or the unix cp command) DeCSS is the only component that was created after DVDs were invented, and the only part that is specific to encrypted DVDs.
I don't actually agree with the judgement in that case, but I can follow the argument.
It just so happens I am in the market for a new garage door opener. Can anyone recommend a good opener that is not made by Chamberlain?
Yes. That's very droll of you.
"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.
What's the difference between buying a third-party garage door opener and buying a third-party ink cartrige?
Out of Cheese Error:
Please reboot universe
Am I the only one that's a little concerned with the prospect of being able to buy a universal garage door opener? Isn't this like making a master key to every lock in the country?
Frankly, I wish they ruled for the DMCA on this one...
However, if I had to pay all of their court costs, then they would be motivated to only settle if it was indeed their fault (because not only do they pay the 20k, they also pay my court costs). If I sue them frivilously, then I have to pony up their multiple hundred-thousands in court costs (including time, attorney fees, etc).
No, instead it would turn into a whoever has the deepest pockets wins. This is a classic LOOSING argument you present. The well-funded will just spend a ton on litigation thus increasing the potential liability of the person suing to such an extent that it would ruin them if they did lose - most lawyers wouldn't even take the case even if it was winnable because the potential loss is too large. Such a law is destined to hurt the people that have already been wronged.
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
From the wired article, the headline, "Opening Doors With the DMCA" sits right next to a Best Buy ad.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I think it's the right general idea, but instead the loser should pay the winner either whatever the going rate for a court-appointed attorney would be, or their own legal costs, whichever is higher.
I just have one question
what is a Univeral garage door opener?
does it work with a univeral garage door?
Maybe the univeral corporation is bigger then I previously thought.
"Once upon a time men were lions and machines were mice, but since it was so long ago, now its twice upon a time."
Critics of the DMCA believe the lawsuit was an abuse of the DMCA, used to trample the competition
I thought the whole point of the DMCA was to trample competition? This case is meaningless, the whole law abolished is what we want.
The laws purpose is to basically give companies a tool that allows them to produce shabby token security and use law to cover the rest, its like producing a very very bad lock and saying "its ok, its just a token lock, if anyone does break in we'll sue them". You might as well just go the whole way and not make the lock at all and then just sue people if they push the door open or copy the cd or whatever it is.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No. MPEG-2 video and Dolby Digital audio, both of which are required for decoding Region 1 DVD Video titles, are patented in the United States.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
Where does this go from here? Can I now legally produce a universal disk player which can play DVDs? What about a competing eBook reader?
While I agree with the judges ruling in this case, I wonder how well it will stand up to the inevitable appeal given the precedents already set. What is the difference here (aside from exposing the absurdity of the law).
That Turing guy reverse engineered products we haven't even invented yet! Oh, the courts already screwed him... Nevermind.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
By that logic, the thing that plays the DVD isn't a codec at all because it doesn't encode, only decodes.
What the heck are you babbling about? I have personally used PowerDVD, MSI DVD, WinDVD, and one other (I forget what) on Windows. I have never used WMP to play a DVD. Where did you get the idea that you couldn't?
I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive.
Absolutes are not very good in this case, because there are many reasonable grounds to go to court, and losing shouldn't necessarily imply that one side was all right and another was all wrong, in particular in civil suits where the standard is only "preponderance of evidence".
Leave it at the judge/jury to decide if either case should carry their own costs, or if the loser should pay the winner's court costs in part or in full. The general rule would is that each party covers their own. This would keep frivolous lawsuits at bay, while still maintaining a fair balance in cases where both sides' arguments had true merit.
Also, the partial costs is very nice for instances where the little guy should be forced to pay some extra for wasting the opponent's time, but where the other side has spent excessive amounts on legal fees, e.g. reporting large parts of the legal department to be working on said case.
This is taken from the court system in Norway, and in my experience it is working well. In particular note that even if you get a lawyer that'll take your case on a contingency basis, you'd still have to pay hard cash if your claims are hogwash. I think the US system could use some of that...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not to mention, when this comes back around to hurt the company the investors/board of directors are going to be looking for replacements for the upper level mgmt that screwed up. Even if you are in a position where you might get laid off as a result of this, at least you'll get severence pay of some sort while you look for another job. Genie is probably for most people the first name people think of when considering garage door openers... I can't even name another brand off the top of my head. Explain that in a memo... do they really want to start to alienate customers when bad press comes around, and give another company to jump into that marketshare?
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Trolls who assume some air of authority with respect to the article. They post quickly, making wild, non-trivially verifiable claims.
Of course, it's all a crock of shit.
Moderators: Don't moderate up anyone informative if they don't offer any proof or make a claim and they have a shoddy posting record. Otherwise YOU WILL be slaughtered in M2.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Anyone remember the line:
"Let the fools have their tartar sauce..."
Seems applicable...
He parks outside because his garage door still does not work. Dumb laws will come and go, but some things will never change.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Chamberlain attorney Karl R. Fink did not return a message left at his office.
Perhaps he's working on his open source project.
Subduction leads to orogeny
Remember, we are not citizens, we are consumers.
Just in case you were getting any wild ideas.
and if the RIAA has it's way, they would have the right to bust in and check to make sure you were using it the right way.
Yes, kinda far-fetched I know (that particular bit of legislation hasn't made it to the floor yet), but this is a story about an attempted misapplication of copyright law the **AA fought for tooth and nail.
+&x
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.
15 U.S.C. 14:
Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Skylink, the sister of Skynet... so now we know that Skynet was created in part as a copyright cirumvention device.
Smile, it's humor...even if offtopic -- not worth your precious mod points
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
When you look at this, you will see that some people are catching on. The problem is that a bad idea (that is good for corporations) catches on like wildwire and then gets passed through. A good idea, or the realization that a bad idea was an extreme f***-up, does catch on, but slower until it build momentum.
Eventually the DCMA will die, the ball is rolling... and we should be applauding decisions like this garage-remote judgement as they just add impetus to it.
I'll admit I haven't been following OCG for long, but it seems to me that rather than FUD, he simply presents a point of view that is out of kilter. Just because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he's one of "them".
It's been a long time.
I meant legally wrong, not morally wrong.
Note To play DVDs, you must have a DVD-ROM drive and a software or hardware DVD decoder installed on your computer.
Enough said.
Maybe Overly Critical Guy is using better hardware than you?
Trust me, you do not need a software codec if you have a hardware one installed. (Creative DXR3, Canopus ADVC-100, RealMagic)
OK - who stole my duct tape?
I affect society all the time. In reality I am just a barbarian....
eesh...did that pun really just come out of my fingers??
The DMCA is a law that makes circumvention of a Copy-protection device illigal, now the entire point of a copy-protection device is to stop people copying something, thats its whole purpose. if there is any way that someone can copy something then the copy-protection device has completely failed its one and only job in life, so for a company to sue someone under the DMCA is to admit that their product is completely useless but that they should still be able to sell this totally useless product, make money off it, and make money from someone else just for realising that its useless.
Now seriously, and not trolling or trying to be funny, one of statements below must be absolutely true by pure logic:
Who ever came up with this law was either:
a) Bribed.
b) Incompetent.
c) High.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The original OO ideal was that one object would own its data throughout the entire lifecycle of the object. Only the object that owned the data would be allowed access to the data of the object.
This is why OO programmers coined the phrase the problem of persistence. The problem is that it is harder to assure that a program owns its data when the data is written to disk. Many of the first OO languages were extremely adverse to writing any data to disk. Some had really funky programs that would write out the memory state. Some tried to lock written data so that no other programs could access it.
One of the goals of the original ODBMS craze was that objects would control all access to the data in the database.
You can see this design philosophy in the Windows Registry where one program owns access to the data in the registry. Why do you think the registry is so weird?
This idea of data being owned by its object is also present in many security models where the security objects own the database of user names and passwords.
My guess is that you missed the part of the computer revolution where objects were the cure all to all ills that ever plagued mankind and that objects would replace legacy RDBMSs by 1989, or whenever it was.
This OO post was actually very relevant to the copyright issue here, because if you are holding the the original OO ideals that your program owns the data through the whole lifecycle of the object, then having other programs access your object breaks your design philosophy. Pointing this out is not all that trollish.
Personally, I do not agree with the absolutist OO design, I just thought the conflict was relevant.
I learned to program using Borland Turbo C++ and later Watcom C++ 10.0 in the very early '90s, so I came in right in the midst of the OOP craze. (I still have the original TC++ floppies and Borland C++ 3.0 and Watcom 10.0 CDs.)
I'm a hobbyist programmer, not a professional, so perhaps I missed some parts of the argument. However, most of the problem of data persistence I'm familiar with involved the difficulties of getting an object properly written to or read from disk. Particularly where there are several generations of inheritance involved, it can be quite tricky to get all of the data properly written out, then to reconstruct the object when the data is read back in. Examples I've seen where the memory state is written out were responses to the problem of properly restoring a complex object, not an attempt to make the data impossible to modify.
I agree that in any particular program, only the class that is dealing with the data needs to be familair with the details of how the data is stored either internally or externally. That isn't the same as saying that OOP requires the data not be manipulated on disk.
The Windows registry seems a poor example to me, since a great many programs manipulate data in the registry. And discussions of making data tamper resistent due to issues of security are quite distinct from issues of OOP design.
Finally, it wasn't my intent to imply you were trolling. I simply don't see the corelation between OOP principles and file formats.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I tend to think ahead of myself. I started OOP with object databases, which focused largely on the nature of data. I was actually a reactionary who claimed that there were limits to OOP.
Good file format design starts with the data. You figure out the best way to store information to the disk. In relational databases you start by normalizing the data. In music, you try to figure out what information you need to record to get a good sound. The program that interprets the data is incidental. Data is independent of the program.
The extreme of OO design would say that there is no meaning to data outside the program to interpret it. Data is just a minor part of the overall object.
Now lets look at programming. Many of the first computers lacked good memory management procedure. There were all sorts of bugs caused by programs accessing memory from other programs. OO completely solved this at the programming level. It gave an absolute that only the object had access to the data owned by the object.
OO was working so well in computers, that it was natural to want to use it for other challenges.
OO is not just a programming language, it is a design principle. OOP works great when the life cycle of all the objects start and end in the user session. However, there are many objects that persist beyond the user session. For example, an employee object would exist from the hiring event to the mass lay off event.
This means that objects need to store data in a persistent medium. Theoretically, although this data is written in a file, it is still part of the object.
Current wisdom of the day would say that OO rules while the data of the object is in memory, but OS rules when it is stored to disk. Of course, the distinction between disk and RAM might someday blur.
Let's say you created an WMU player that only had RAM. This is high quality RAM that does not crash. Rather than downloading a music file, this program creates a music object. The object might have an encoded self destruct date, etc. Accessing this data by anything other than the encoded WMU object would entail actually reading the memory states of the RAM...which revisits the pre OOP days.
This is not a legal challenge. It is just a philosophical musing.
Riiiiight.
If breathing were made illegal tomorrow, breathing would be illegal. If serial murder were made legal tomorrow, it would be made legal, which says nothing about the morality of the situation, but let me assure you that trying to get away with having something without paying for it isn't going to suddenly become moral and ethical because a couple obsessive compulsive downloaders don't think it's convenient for it to be immoral and unethical. It's like I said before. People here have their own "code of the uber-nerd", easily described as a combination of mob rule, convenience, and religious-style "righteousness"(ie. hypocracy). Rest assurred, if breathing WERE outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a big article on slashdot the same day about how Microsoft, the RIAA, SCO, or whoever the minor enemy of the week is, might have to pay hefty fines because it's breaking the law. Rest assurred, you'd see at least one-hundred "yay! Microsoft is getting what they deserve! They shouldn't break the law!" posts.
Anyway, if this is the same guy I was "talking" to earlier, now it seems you are the one creating straw men to knock down. Of course, it doesn't matter, because if you ever cried out "but you're arguement is just a strawman arguement!" outside of the debate club, you'd get a strange look at best(a bullet at worst, but not even you would debate with a carjacker), and they'd either stop the conversation right there, or completely ignore the statement. Don't let me stop you though, please, keep knockin' those guys down. They owe me money.
Ciao,
It's been a long time.