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."
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
Why would you want to do such a thing? You would only end up with a substandard version of Windows...
The owls are not what they seem
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"
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.
It also prevents all of the pain-and-suffering fishing expeditions. Right now, I can sue [insert-mega-corp-here] for $20k for nearly anything, and be almost sure they will settle because it is cheaper for them. 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).
America is law-suit crazy because their is very little penalty. Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued? This law would make people much more honest in their claims I believe, and much more likely to defend themselves instead of rolling over an playing dead.
They would be more likely to defend themselves because, if they are right and win, they are not out a single cent. They can hire any high-priced attorney they feel like, because, when they were vindicated, the loser would pay up (the RIAA, for instance). Of course, you better be sure you are actually right, and not trying to win on a technicality or something :)
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
I'm announcing my new combo garage door opener and Linux-based DVD player!
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.
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
> 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
I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs.
I don't believe that I can agree with this statement. Giant law firms would randomly pick people breaking some stupid regulation and use their vast legal resources to sue them for large amounts of money. Since they had more lawyers, they would usually win and then force the randomly selected victim to pay the court costs. (RIAA anyone?) The law would become a vast automatic random extortion machine. Historically, when that happens people form criminal organizations that use violence and terrorism to protect themselves. Even when the legal environment changes, the criminal violence secret societies remain and become the extortionists that the state was previously.
The real effect of DMCA extortion lawsuits is to transfer economic development to the underdeveloped world. In these places, the amount of wealth generated by reverse-engineering technology and putting it to alternative uses is greater than the amount of generated by lawsuits. Which is why the authorities in the developing world ignore first-world legalities that serve primarily to transfer wealth (to law firms) instead of creating wealth.
In the Congo, no one gives a fuck if you manage to figure out how a garage door opener works. But if you can rewire a surplus garage door opener to make it easier to load heavy sacks onto a river barge, then yeah, someone will be interested in working with you.
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.