Slashdot Mirror
StorageTek Blocks 3rd Party Maintenance with DMCA
bstone writes "According to LawGeek, a district court in Boston has used the DMCA to grant a preliminary injunction against a third party service vendor who tried to fix StorageTek tape library backup systems. The court found that third party service techs who used the 'Maintenance Key' without StorageTek's permission 'circumvented' to gain access to the copyrighted code in violation of the DMCA, even though they had the explicit permission of the purchasers to fix their machines."
If you don't have enough money to buy politicians, you can still stop buying from companies who attack via stupid laws. If you don't have that choice, you have to live with it.
I just found out today that Switzerland passed a law in 2002 forbidding manufacturers' garages from claiming that third-party repairs and service work would void automobile warranties, even though car owners could save up to half in parts and labor costs.
If I were a purchasing executive, and had just blown a large amount of money on an SL8500, I'd seriously reconsider buying from StorageTek in the future if they were going to lock me in to their own service plans with such an ability to set prices without any competition.
Remember kids, vote with your wallets and let them know it...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
...until only the OEM will be allowed to open your box and repair / upgrade / modefy it?
I do hope this ruling is overturned. If it's left standing, it may lead to fewer and fewer computer (and other) related items that could be serviced / upgraded by everyone (and thus cheaper than if only the OEM could do so). If this is allowed to go on, how long will it be before we see the first car which only the OEM could change oil on?
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
this case seems to basicly to be about a password protected maintenance system .... wait 'till the car companies start putting passwords on their engine computers and claiming this as a precedent ....
Monopolies were illegal in America.
Isn't this abusing the DMCA to circumvent the anti monopoly laws.
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
So now if I want to repair a StorageTek machine I have to get their signed, sealed and delivered permission to do so? What a scam. Another compnay abusing the DMCA to squeeze more money out of us.
Apply this to cars. Your mechanic would have to get permission from Nissan to so much as open the bonnet and change the oil. Come to think of it so would you. You'd also need a court order to fill up your tank, because you need access to maitenence the car.
The third party company 'circumvented' the 'protections' that StorgaTek had put in place? What quailifies as circumvention these days? Turning numbers and letter into binary digits? Simply running code that happens to do something the copyright holder dosen't like? StorageTek placed 'protections' on the code? Does compiling, and maybe obfuscating, count as protection nowadays?
May the Maths Be with you!
Isn't the American ideal capitalism? Free competition?
Surely we'll see the flexing of large legislative muscles and a lot of economic saber rattling because of this.
All rites reversed 2010
So now, everyone is going to encode their products' internal software so that any attempt to access it in any way to service it can be construed as attempting to circumvent a protection system.
Nice.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Hit um where it hurts!
Open Source Sushi
So there's no chapter in DMCA about
- owner's rights ?
- rights to recover you own data ?
- create interoperability when needed ?
This law is certainly well thought out.
Very well balanced:
Producer has all rights and consumer has none.
- and in exchange for that -
Consumer has no rights and producer has all.
We, up here in the true north, tend to see the American governing bodies as just too damn big and requiring lobbists just to get a prefunctory hearing.
Perhaps one of the more telling differences between Canadian and American systems is the much more proactive stance of the judiciary in the American system. Presently there is some debate in Canada as to how proactive we want our judiciary. I see the American judiciary as being empowered and expected to mititgate against such Catch 22 situations as the one the story outlines. Perhaps it would make an interesting Poll to ask
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
What does this ruling mean? If it stands up on appeal, it means StorageTek has a monopoly on service for all of its machines. No independent vendor will be able to compete with them for service contracts because no independent vendor will be authorized to "access" the maintenance code necessary to debug the machine.
Reading between the lines, it also seems to imply that vendors would in the future have a free card to hold their customers hostage. Imagine if a company built in code to cause a range of various complaints. It would be breaking the DMCA to reverse engineer their code and pinpoint that the problems were built in. At the same time, the company would be able to turn a nice profit on charging for "maintenance" contracts to "fix" the "bugs".
Of course, if there were too many such problems it would damage the reputation of their products. But if there were few enough, it could provide just enough extra "free revenue" to provide a useful extra profit source.
Fun stuff huh?
A little planning goes a long way...
I'm frightened. The way things are regressing, we'll have an Orwellian world with a handful of companies controlling everything; simply because they've locked down everybody with their proprietary technologies. What these greed-stricken politicians and clueless judges don't realize is that they're destroying the very premise of capitalism in the name of protecting a few corporations. What's worrying me even more is that technology is evolving at such a rapid pace that i don't see judges even coming close to keeping abreast with it. we shall definitely see more clueless rulings like this one.
Wiggum: "Once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal."
Homer: "Is that so? Oh Flanders! Won't you join me in my kitchen? Heh heh heh heh."
Wiggum: "Uh...doesn't work if you invite them."
Flanders: "Hidily hey!"
Homer: "Go home."
Flanders: "Toodley-doo!"
-= If you fight Dragons long enough, you will become a Dragon =-
Your rights off-line seems more appropriate ;-)
I only do this because none of you will RTFA
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If I were a purchasing executive, and had just blown a large amount of money on an SL8500, I'd seriously reconsider buying from StorageTek in the future if they were going to lock me in to their own service plans with such an ability to set prices without any competition.
;)
Odd, EMC has been locking people into service contracts and putting the screws to them for decades
From the linked blog: p.s. The Court also found, in a bizarre twist of logic, that while it is legal to load a program into RAM for repairs, it's illegal to allow it to persist in RAM while you fix it. I don't even know where to begin with that one.
I used to think, when geeks said the courts couldn't effectively decide technology cases, that the geeks were underestimating the courts.
But this, plus the recent ruling that the Wiretap Act does not apply to email because email isn't just transmitted=, it's stored on servers, makes me think that perhaps the courts have finally found an aspect of society to which they just can't seem to effectively apply the law.
Which is worrisome in a number of ways. Perhaps we needs special courts, like the tax courts, for technology issues? Or do we need entire new laws that aren't rooted in traditional property laws?
A year ago I'd have said that traditional property laws could cover technology, but events -- and the courts --seem intent on proving me wrong.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Yup... They might have all the rights under your DMCA, but it's the consumer in the end that has the money... This world is getting truely bastardized. Some call it democracy... but it's $$$ apears to have the louder voice though. I know. lets all just stop paying tax ;-)
This is why I vote Libertarian. A Libertarian President would not enforce the DMCA, and would work on getting it repealed. A Libertarian President AND Congress would certainly get rid of the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and many other evils of Big Government.
-------
Vote Badnarik for President
www.badnarik.org
1. Threaten to void the warranty, making your customers angry.
2. Consider it part of doing business, and raise prices since your profits used to be based mostly on product repairs. Again, makes customers angry.
3. Lock your product with proprietary technology and sue all those who would tamper with it. The average customer won't find out, and you most current customers will never hear of it.
Personally I would have tried Torx screws. Noooobody has torx screwdrivers.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
It should get appealed, and a wider panel with hopefully more sense will say "Yeah, the DMCA says that, but 1) This isn't what the DMCA was intened for 2) In conflicts with a bunch of other laws and 3) Democracy sucks, except that everything else is worse."
paintball
Lexmark is using the DMCA to stop rivals from using 3rd party toner cartridges in their printers. What the hell is up with this?!
If these case are won, it is a damn dangerous precedent.
[ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
Unless your are in-crowd, meaning you have a "paper" to prove you know to service/use something, DMCA will keep you out.
Not yesterday's trend in USA, where it is more important to have sw/hw/... company controlled "certificates" than university diploma. Only it is sanctioned by law now, not only customer's will to work with you regardless of certificate set you keep on wall behind you.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
I know. lets all just stop paying tax ;-)
I know this was somewhat tongue in cheek; but while not paying your taxes is not an option for most sane people there were some interesting ideas around in the 80s during the prime of the German peace movement to do civil protest by tax payments: Do pay your taxes, but either pay a miniscule amount too low (e.g. 1 USD too low) or even better, a little too much (so they own you and have nothing to hold against you). As at least here in Germany the state has to be very accurate in the payments it gets or receives (ever got one of those "Here is your great tax return of 0,03 EUR"-letters ?) you generate a huge amount of administrative overhead as the state has to remind or repay you for miniscule amounts. If enough people to this one can bring huge bureaucracies to a screeching halt.
I don't even know what to say...but I had to respond with something.
The DMCA is obviously a scourge to the freedom of information. When it was first introduced--and abused--I thought to myself "Excellent, now the absurdity and obvious problems with this law can finally be addressed, how can any rationally minded lawmaker not noticed these issues?"
Ha.
Now I realize that logic like that ranks right up there with "If it wasn't totally true, they wouldn't put it on the news..." and "The FCC can't do that....cmon, like people would let them get away with that !
Ha.
I don't know what or how, but, critical mass is obviously upon us...some day (in my lifetime anyway) I expect to see the recoil of all of these actions. What this means is a mystery to me....but, things like this can't go much farther untill the proverbial Joe Q. Sixpacks of the world become personally and financially affected...but, then again, by then....I'm sure "their" plan will be in full swing and such rogue thinkers will be dealt with appropriately.
Sickening....truely. Someone show me a glimmer of hope...please.
... I guess StorageTek has now lost the business of anyone who reads /.
Way to go, ST.
Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
So what happens in a few years time when StorageTek stop supporting the hardware and a business still has data they need to recover from an old tape but they don't have a working tape drive?
It shouldn't happen - the business should have thought about that already. But reality and idealism don't always meet...
everybody has been bitching about the latest EU DMCA -clone law.
what people haven't noticed about it [the DMCA-clone] is that it is "without prejudice" to certain key sections of the 91/EC/250 directive.
in other words, certain rights such as fixing bugs by reverse engineering the code are PROTECTED UNDER EU LAW EVEN IF THOSE BUGS ARE LOCKED BY A "SECURITY MECHANISM".
it is also interesting to note that no mention is made in the EU DMCA-clone directive on the _effectiveness_ of the security measures required - yes _required_ - to be placed into technological devices to protect copyright material.
in other words, i could write some fucking dipshit brain-dead "security" measure such as XORing 0xA5 over the top of the data (yes, that's actually what MAPI does) and then sue the fuck out of people for "breaking" it.
Maybe it went like this:
StorageTech execs: We were going to commit suicide this month, but we decided on an alternative method of self-destruction. We'll sue to prevent someone from testing our product to make sure it works.
And then we'll get our trademark on Slashdot! We'll be the leader in company deathcycle management.
It's important to realize that the DMCA is not the only corrupt aspect of the U.S. government: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
How does a court that does not understand technical things interpret a law that was written by people who didn't understand technical things? This way:
"... contrary to their assertions, defendants are not saved by 17 U.S.C. 117.3 That section was passed in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to protect computer technicians who risked violating copyright law just by turning on the machines they were to service. Thus, the statute provides that it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if the program is copied solely by turning on the machine for the purpose only of maintenance and repair and 1) the copy "is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance and repair is completed," and 2) any part of the computer program that is not necessary for the machine to be activated is not accessed or used. 17 U.S.C. 117(c). Defendants copy the Code by turning on the machine; however, they do so not just for repair, but also for the express purpose of circumventing plaintiff's security measures, modifying the Maintenance Level, and intercepting plaintiff's Event Messages."
"The evidence further shows that plaintiff requires its employees to sign confidentiality agreements and that it denies its customers any rights to the Maintenance Code and Event Messages."
Earlier in the injunction, the court said, "Plaintiff's storage systems are, at their most basic, a large number of tape libraries that plaintiff collectively calls Silo Systems. They have three components: 1) a Library Storage Module, 2) a Library Control Unit, and 3) a Library Management Unit. The first is a very large box-like structure (14' x14' x 8') and a piece of hardware with robotics that is operated by software in the Control and Management units. It typically contains thousands of tapes, tape drives and a robotic arm to store and retrieve tapes as directed."
The court says that it is entirely acceptable that you can buy the room-size hardware from StorageTek, but you can't test it to see if it works: "Plaintiff [StorageTek] also services the customers' installations by means of diagnostic software, the "Maintenance Code," which it uses to identify malfunctions and problems in the customers' storage system. Although the storage systems are programmed with the Maintenance Code along with the functional operations software, the Code is not sold, and only plaintiff has access to it."
It seems to me only fair that StorageTek be required to give the injunction to all prospective customers, so that customers can see the circumstances in which they would be backing up their important data.
In my opinion, a customer would be crazy to trust their data to a company that may go out of business at any time because of incredibly bad management decisions, and amazingly adversarial business practices.
A scene like this will be repeated wherever StorageTek systems are sold: Computer tech: "Oh, you say we're getting a StorageTek system? I'll just put a copy of the injunction on the CEO's desk, with a note saying that we may be sued if we test the system."
So does this mean that with my fancy new car...the one with the factory alarm system...that a locksmith would be breaking the DMCA if he helped me without the factory's permission? Seems about the same to me.
Just another day in Paradise
prevent anyone else from helping you
prevent anyone from learning how to help you
starve out any competition (even if you're allowed to recover your data years later - there will be no one left with the knowledge how to do it)
Good luck recovering your data then.
Hmm... preview ;) Here's what it was supposed to be:
As at least here in Germany the state has to be very accurate in the payments it gets or receives (ever got one of those "Here is your great tax return of 0,03 EUR"-letters ?) you generate a huge amount of administrative overhead as the state has to remind or repay you for miniscule amounts.
And that's why that protest is useless.
I'd guess that here in Finland very few individual taxpayers pay exactly the right amount of tax (even though the total amounts of returns and extra taxes are probably very close to each other). So whatever you do, you always generate that overhead. Which would probably mean that it's considered normal and is already budgeted.
No, they wont, as it cost them millions of dollars to create. Let's not get blinded by our ideologies. It's not right or wrong to be open or closed source - it's personal preference. Having a go at companies for not releasing their intellectual property they spent millions on to the general public for free is incredibly naive.
But at the same time doesn't EMC use contracts that the other party can read & modify if they desire?
What will these companies do when our memories last longer than the DMCA?
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
"Anything you buy can and will be used against you."
Seriously though, why does it feel like more and more companies are moving to the "drug dealer" business model? You buy product $foo, oh you'll also need product $bar, and since it has proprietary connections, you'll need add-on $foobar, and repairs can only be done by certified $foobarmen. And no, you may not use third-party anything, and you're sinking deeper and deeper into the quicksand.
Selling stuff, as in money for goods, seems to be out. Everything is supposed to be licenced, and with a list of strings attached longer than my arm. Usually convieniently "agreed to" by opening the box or clicking "yes", long after the purchase. The first, in a long string of catches.
Oh yes, and of course you have the right to read the EULA up front. Just file a request with the Central Bureaucracy (if you don't get it watch more Futurama, ep. 2x11). Not to mention, who'd spend more money on a lawyer that could understand the licence terms than the product is worth?
Why does it happen? Because consumer choice doesn't work. All but a few idealists boycott because they believe something will change within a reasonable timeframe. But these companies don't need you as a customer today, next month or next year. If nothing else because they have so many other suckers hooked. You need them and their products more than they need you. Did I mention this is the "drug dealer" business model?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So there's no chapter in DMCA about
- owner's rights ?
All of your rights under coptright law are revoked. You do however get the right to do whatever the copyright holder has generously "authorized" you to do.
- rights to recover you own data ?
None. If the disk gets scratched then go buy another copy. Remember, it's "good for the economy" every time you spend money.
- create interoperability when needed ?
Well, actually there is an interoperability clause! However it only permits you to descramble software, and only under very restricted circumstances. You still go to prison for descrambling anything else, like the movie or song you bought.
Very well balanced:
Producer has all rights and consumer has none.
- and in exchange for that -
Consumer has no rights and producer has all.
Well yeah, the DMCA (and pretty much every other copyright law in the last 30 years) was literally been written by laywers employed by the publishing lobby.
And that's hardly the only lopsided portion of the DMCA. For example there's the "expedited subpeona process". The DMCA essentially gives copyright holders the power to issue themselves subpeonas without judicial review, with absolutely no penalty for bogus subpeoneas. (The "under penalty of perjury" clause only applies to the claim that you are a copyright holder on something, not that he is the copyright holder of the subject of the subpeona or the allegation of infringement.) Yep, copyright holders get special "expedited subpeona" powers while actual police officers have to go through the normal subpeona process and go before a real judge while investigating rapes and murders. Copyright holders are special that way. They need powers that even the police don't have because, well, having to get a real subpeona would be, like, annoying or something. They're special that way, they get to right the laws.
Oh, and then there's the lovely notice-and-takedown process. Again, no need to go before a judge or anything, just mail off a note. The process essentially mandates that anything get immediately yanked off of the internet based on nothing more than a private demand letter.
I'm sure I've missed some other fair and balanced portions of the DMCA. If anyone thinks of anything I missed, go ahead and add it in a reply.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Now I see people are talking about what if this was applied to cars but there is a more underlying point here. WHO OWNS THE ITEM IN QUESTION! If I buy a car then is it me or the car company that owns it. now this may sound like a silly question that even a kid could answer it is that I own the car not the company. So as such they have no right what so ever to stop you for doing what ever you like with your car. Any infringement on this is a infringement on your owner ship of the item and this is what we should put in there face. They should not be able to say you cannot open the bonnet on your own car it is your bonnet after all. So if the car needs maintenance then that person has the right to do ever he sees fit to do once given consent by the own me I. This may be a over simplification of the area but I dont understand way anyone what accept or allow any one to dictate more complex conditions that this. Remember it is your car you can do anything you like to it!
I do recall that Lexmark sued (using the DMCA) when a low-price ink cartridge manufacturer copied the chip on the cartidge.
Here is a link to that story. And not only did Lexmark sue, it actually won a preliminary injunction against the manufacturer. Looks like history is repeating itself...
Things have gotten really nutty at the intersection of computers and "copyright". Once upon a time, copying a book or movie was a step that was not a normal part of usage. Today, as we've moved to a digital world copying is THE basic mechanism for accessing anything in a digital medium. However, because we are stuck on the word "copyright" we start getting these nutty cases.
I believe that the right answer is to replace "copyright" with "distributionright". Make as many copies of anything as you like for yourself. Control shouldn't be on "copying" but on "distributing". The rules would have to be tweaked appropriately to handle companies but I think that this would be a much more sensible concept.
That's what all this is about. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Companies wanting to preserve their competitive advantage slap copyrights on anything in sight and charge through the nose for maintenance and upgrades.
You can see where all this is going, this me-first grubby-fisted lusting after dollars, this coveting of "trade secrets" and "intellectual property". As this practice proliferates, and as technological devices become more and more commonplace, consumers will be faced with a double-headed devil dog of a choice over every product they buy. Either buy into a proprietary "service plan" or throw the product away as soon as it breaks.
Say goodbye to the entrepenurial repair business, say hello to a world of locked-down trade secrets, where ideas are golden geese to be guarded and coveted, and most of humanity languishes in thrall to the companies with the most ruthless legal departments.
Does it have to be this way? No. We have it in ourselves to say no to this nightmarish future. Open source is one start, the idea of knowledge as a common good, to be shared not just because superior products result from open standards, but because freedom is a basic human need, like food or air.
The real goal, however, is to resist the greed that is the source of all this stifling legal red tape, and that comes down to each and every one of us. It starts with little things, like downloading Firefox, or giving a dollar to a panhandler. The future doesn't have to suck.
No, they wont, as it cost them millions of dollars to create.
You seem to have missed the whole point of owning something. Once you do, you should be able to do with it what you want, irrespective of whether they spent $1 or $100 Billion dollars developing it.
Your argument equally applies to what StorageTek are doing, and to me, that suggests you agree with them. Do you ?
Having a go at companies for not releasing their intellectual property they spent millions on to the general public for free is incredibly naive.
I'm not asking them to release intellectual property. I'm asking them to let me know how to get the device to do what it was designed for - draw dots on the screen. They can embed all the intellectual property they want inside the chipset or firmware. I'm not asking them to disclose it in any way (note that if they were smart, they would patent it, and have a government monopoly on it for at least 17 years, rather than trusting it to be kept secret). All they need to do is just publish how to get the card to execute it.
How would you like to buy a car, jump in, find that it doesn't work like a normal car, turn around to the sales guy and say "how do I switch it on?", and have him turn around and say, "I'm sorry, can't tell you that, you'll have to use one of our specially certified drivers". That raises two questions - (1) what if you've proven to be a better driver than theirs (say you drive a Formula 1 race car), and (2) why would you want to have somebody else drive your car anyway, when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself ?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Well thats just one more reason to make sure youre using open source systems.
"They" used to lock you into using their maintenance services by using proprietry hardware. Now that consumer grade hardware is so powerful they cant do that, so they lock you in with proprietry software. OK, nothing new there but this seems to be a new twist, using the law to enforce the "proprietryness" of their software in order to get support contracts.
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
What will these companies do when our memories last longer than the DMCA?
Go bankrupt. And that is where they belong.
Perpetual state of war, government controlling the flow of the "free press," re-writing the language (e.g. patriot act), government can review your reading habits without a warrant, there are cameras at every major intersection, cameras located on every isle of meijer, government can listen to your phone conversations with little oversight,,, Did you know you need a permit to protest in public?
At what point do you step back and say... OK, now is it orwellian?
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
DMCA is the digital millenium COPYright act, right? Then what were they trying to copy by gaining access using the password? Actually; would they even have been able to copy anything using that password?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
as i always understood it you owned the HARDWARE and "leased" the software, you can do whatever the dumbf*ck you want with the hardware as long as you dont mess with the software/firmware but it seems thats changing to a you-lease-everything model now. o well soon no one will own computers, will just lease them all from aoltimewarnermicroftsonyhonda(big merger coming soon)
Usually convieniently "agreed to" by opening the box or clicking "yes", long after the purchase. The first, in a long string of catches.
Yeah
Think of the disks being the cat.
The EULA agreement is the, er, box.
You must agree to the EULA to install (measure) and test the software (cat).
But you can only return some software if you disagree to the EULA.
Hence whilst the disk is not installed, it is in a superpostion of working and not working! When you install (measure) the state of the software (cat) you create an irreversable process.
If it works (cat alive) you are ok!
If it doesn't work (cat dead) you are fked and cant send it back!
erm QED
(No 90 day warrenty, IT'S MEANT TO DO THAT)
I understand the difference between purchasing a product and purchasing the use of a product. I know that, as technology has become more complicated, lines can and will be drawn in the sand between what an owner can do with their products. nVidia, especially, are having issues with this as they use non-open-source code in their drivers. Releasing that into the wild would be a violation of their license.
I really fail to see how someone with the slightest intelligence can have a problem with that, unless you're some sort of zealot. I'm not having a go, but I really could do with it being explained to me. I'm a reasonable person :)
Your car analogy is slightly flawed. The correct analogy would be: You get in your car, it starts and drives perfectly, and you ask the manufacturer how they managed to get it to work so well. They tell you that they spent millions developing it, and unless you want to fork over some money for that secret, they won't tell you. Suddenly doesn't sound so unfair, does it. ;)
replace trickery with security hole.
I had a worm on my pc to day, damb it's trickery.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I own a BMW, and the tools to reset the service indicator are as common as SCO stories on /.
"Actually, that's a requirement for many vehicle warranties, and has been for quite some time."
Actually, if you are living in this US, this is false and has been for some time.
You can google as well as I can. Look it up.
But back in the '80s the IRS didn't have the massive amount of automation it does now. It would be very simple for them to send you a refund, minus expenses for overpayments, or a bill for your underpayment along with $100 fine and interest.
Just another day in Paradise
A quick search on google showed nothing newer than late Feb 2003, when Lexmark won the first round. Knowing nothing more, I'd guess that the Lexmark decision has not been reversed, and StorageTek is merely the second to hop on the bandwagon.
If you can't compete, legislate your competition away.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I have a suggestion for all the purchasing managers/planners/engineers/designers who rely on purchased assemblies - do your back-end homework. This scheme of selling cheap on the front end and screwing you in the back-end has been going on for years. The standard manufacturing mantra has been to sell cheap to get the customer hooked then suck them dry maintaining it. Now the DMCA is being used to secure this business model. Nothing new. If you are going to purchase something, do your homework. How fast does a company obsolete equipment? What is the cost of non-warranty replacement parts? Factory-only service or third-party independents or both? If you want to make a dent, don't buy products from manufacturers that perform back-end gouging. The word will get out, but then the US Congress is the best government that special interests can buy and somehow the special interests will whine that free choice is ruining their business and congress will ban that too to keep the money coming in and their jobs preserved. "A little revolution now and then is a good thing..."
That might be an option for issues clearly understandable by everyone. The DMCA has not yet made enough damage to the economy and freedom of the average person to be perceived by most people as an intolerable abuse. So a protest would generate some more trouble and costs for the bureaucracy, paid by ourselves, without catastrophic effects.
I suggest to wait.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
...he would be held liable if he didn't fix it, and the manufacturer is protected from all liability for defective heart stimulators anyway.
so everyone loses except the manufacturer.
No copyright protection mechanisms were circumvented.
They bruteforced a password.
This password was not protecting access to any copyrighted works. It was not circumventing copyright access mechanisms.
No trade secrets were revealed. The controls were only bypassed.
They created a forged ID file from scratch.
This ID file was not protecting access to any copyrighted works. It was not circumventing copyright protection mechanisms.
In neither case were they bypassing or circumventing copyright protection mechanisms.
storagetek will lose just like the automobile manufacturers lost.
Well yeah, don't know if it's the law or court, but
became my favorite ruling so far
Is your company leaving its business critical data at the mercy of a single vendor? Maybe it's time to switch to a sensible alternative.
I wonder if there isn't a way the average joe can abuse the DMCA to destroy the system itself, or destroy companies who abuse the DMCA.
In other words, fight fire with fire. Use their own guns against them.
Alas, Amazon doesn't list it, but if you can find a copy somewhere read Bureaucrats and how to annoy them by R.T. Fishall.
Releasing the source to their drivers ...
Re-read my posts. Where have I asked them to release their source code ?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
StorageTek is stopping people using a maintenance facility that it considers intelectual property. It is NOT stopping people from maintaining its systems, merely using its maintenance routines. People who talk about maintenance monopolies and 'not opening the hood' really should actually read what this is about!
If the said hardware and software were on the customers property doesn't the customer have the right to do anything he likes to the property regardless of lease agreements.
As long the hardware and software are returned in the same condition as supplied and no portions of code are distributed outside of the company for profit what does it matter to the supplier, they still get their money right?
Does this mean performance, monitoring and diagnostic software, the very same standard tools used by corporations with large IT installations to ensure suppliers are keeping to their SLAs are currently breaking the law?
Remember the DMCA only applies to the USA.
You have got to admit, having a DMCA Hulk that smashes tards who pull a DMCA, and all those who go along with it, to a pulp would be damn satisfying.
I've never needed any special tools, particularly. Especially not a funny key. Even the service light resetting tool can be "faked" with a simple piece of wire...
Does the Magnusson-Moss act have any relevance here? (This is what lets you do your own oil changes instead of having to take the car to the dealer...) Or does the presence of a "license" contract signed by the customer somehow void these guarantees? Or (GASP!) does the DMCA somehow override the Magnusson-Moss act?
You've asked to get information on how they work, which is essentially the same thing. Once you know that, filling in the blanks isn't so hard.
Anyway, this service light. It detects distance travelled (from the speedo/odometer input), engine speed (from the tacho) and fuel consumption (pulse duration from the injection ECU). The harder the car is driven, the shorter the service intervals. This also lets it have a fairly accurate fuel consumption meter, too - when we replaced the batteries in the instruments, the gauge was pretty inaccurate over long journeys, but after a week or so it was pretty much bang on (240 miles, showing 32mpg most of the way, took 7 gallons to fill). So, it seems to work pretty well.
To get the DMCA changed or busted completely, this is the type of case that is critical.
Congress put a stop to this type of "false monopoly" on big ticket items a long time ago.. car manufacturer's tried to make it so that only "certified" techs (aka, dealerships) could work on their cars (and jack up the costs)...
Now, its' creeping back in. First, ink/toner cartridges. DMCA'd to the point where ONLY "dealer" brand is compatible. Second, "copyrighted bits" in communication protocols and whatnot. Big oh-oh. Now, copyrighted keys for "big rig" hardware.
Tough break for the guys in this case, but it is a true negative effect of the DMCA - a chilling of all kinds of previously legal activity.
I don't own any EMC kit either! *-8)
Seriously though; a purchasing department should (ideally, har har) consider TCO of a new piece of equipment. In a large corporation, it's a hefty factor in making a decision to go with vendor x or vendor y--"how well can this be fixed? How fast can they service this? How much will it cost me?"
Remember that for a lot of hardware, the initial acquisition cost is only a small portion of its overall lifetime cost.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Really, how does the government know what I read last week?? They can review my purchasing habits, and can request my library history, but they have no way of knowing what I bought with cash at the local thrift store/used dealer.
there are no cameras at any intersection where I live.
And the only time you would want/need a permit to protest is if you intend to block traffic, and the permit provides the "protesters" police protection. And in the case of controversial hate groups, they need that protection because their ideas are so wrong and unpopular.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
So why do so many vendors not have a problem releasing source code or programming guides ?
If you run Linux, have a look in the "drivers" directory of the kernel source code. Each and every .c file under that directory is a result of vendors realising that they make money off of designing and making hardware. Publishing open programming information can only increase their hardware sales.
Anyway, back to the real issue. Do you agree with what StorageTek are doing ? If you don't, why not, based on what you've said endorsing other vendors doing the same sort of thing ie. hiding information from legitimate owners of the vendor's hardware ?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
stop buying crap from the MPAA or RIAA (ive been boycotting them for years, its not hard) dont support companies that support the DMCA. spread the word about it. even if you cant make a differnce, at least youll know your not another contributor to the problem.
try independant film, music, and/or software. theres some good stuff out there.
I still can't get over how phrases like "Free Speech Zone" and "The Homeland" have entered the language with such little fanfare. Anyone refering to the protection of The Homeland and wearing a little lapel flag 24/7 would have been looked at a little funny in Ye Olden Dayes.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Hmm... preview ;) Here's what it was supposed to be:
;-)
I plead guilty to posting under influence of not enough sleep and too much coffee, you honour
So whatever you do, you always generate that overhead. Which would probably mean that it's considered normal and is already budgeted.
Yes and no. They certainly plan for some overhead. On the other hand they will only plan for a certain percentage of invalid transactions, if you manage to get over this rate considerably it should cause some trouble. Also there are much more people in countries like the US and Germany and I presume that maybe also the Finnish government is perhaps a little more automated than most German agencies currently are (extrapolating to my perception of Finland vs. Germany). However, the other poster is right that this only works if you manage to get a huge amount of people to contribute, else it will only be a minor annoyance. And it certainly has to go hand in hand with appropriate PR campaigns.
Very simple: I will not permit any vendor to lock me in to their products, so StorageTek will not be eligible to bid on any RFPs that I'm a party to. I vote with my wallet!
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
No, he didn't ask to get information on how they work, he asked to get information on how to get them work. That is, he doesn't ask "what exact stuff do you do to draw a line", but only "what do I have to send to the card to get a line drawn".
It's like the difference between the Windows API (for which even MS gives documentation out) and the Windows Source (which you don't get as easily from MS).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I agree that something like this can only work if a large percentage of the population takes part in this. Also one has to do an appropriate PR campaign to make clear that this is a political campaign and not a case of widespread doing bank transactions under influence. It is really doubtful if a somewhat esoteric issue (which it is for most people) like the DMCA can rouse the masses in that way. I think the greatest problem is to make clear to the general population that the DMCA (or their counterparts in other nations) are a problem for everybody while I don't think it is a matter to make people understand the issue itself. There were much more complicated things huge masses of people went on the streets against.
Even scarier is now the Deprtment of Homeland Security is trying to get a bill passed that would allow them to delay or cancel elections in case of terrorist attacks!
I mean how Orwellian does it have to get before people say "Ok it's getting pretty fucking Orwellian in here!"
You can read about the proposed delay and/or cancellation of the election from reuters here.
I work for a UK financial company - we have a large amount of StorageTek hardware. Our support is supplied via a reseller, who resell StorageTek's support packages.
There are a couple of points here that people don't seem to realise:
1) If you tamper with a StorageTek library you can enable unlicensed slots (cells) and enable it to store more tapes than you have paid for. StorageTek are very good in that they allow you to expand your library as you require, rather than making you get a new fully expanded one because you may need the storage space in the future.
2) StorageTek rely upon support contracts to make their libraries profitable. If they allow other companies to support their hardware they will have to charge more for the hardware in the first place.
3) These bits of kit are seriously advanced robotics, there are a lot of trade secrets etc that STK don't really want people to be examining.
That thing still confuses me too; Best guess is that "the attack" would swing people towards Bush; "stay the course" and all this shit (even this is bizarre - if there is another attack, it's Bush's fault that UBL is still out there). UBL (if that's what we're going to decide is the problem, again, it's like targetting Colonel Sanders to stop KFC) can't want Bush back in? Unless he does, in which case, why would you want the same thing as UBL?
This whole election/attack thing is curcular argument after catch-22.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Keeping it closed source is fine with me. Laws againts me or anyone else reverse-engineering what they did and making that information available to anyone who wants in (restricting my free speech) is what I have a problem with.
This issue should be free of government regulation altogether. It should be left to natural market forces where once side tries to protect their so-called IP and a global network of hackers tries to break it. This forces them to attempt better protection.
I know which side will win : )
I don't carry a cell phone. Strike two.
Hell, you can have a protest in the shopping centre carpark here and nobody would care a jot. Strike three.
So, I haven't lost all my personal freedoms yet. Hang on, there's someone knocking on the--
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
Just try to avoid it. It might not be as easy as you think.
Suppose, by bogus patents, StorageTek had the only program that does what you need? Then what do you do? Make one yourself? Maybe, but don't tell anyone else or you will get sued for ten times what StorageTek arbitrarily demands in the first place.
Say you work for StorageTek. I hope you have a taste for Indian food.
Is it yet clear how IP protectionism gives companies the power to screw everyone over? StorageTek, if it used the whole power of US IP laws, can prevent new entrants to their field and use that monopoly power however they like. It's no surprise then that IP heavy companies like GE, M$, and Westinghouse feel free to shop their work out to the lowest bidder and charge as much as it would cost each customer to build one themselves without help from anyone else and without critical improvements that no one else can use. This issue is much larger than software.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
....potentially anyway, these are just off the cuff and off the top.
MS (had to do it) makes it illegal for anyone without at least a MS cert of some kind to "fix" their software, for instance. Apply that-along with this ruling- to any other propietary closed source licensed software or software/hardware combination out there, which this storage tek deal is. That could mean any official vendors computer or computerish gadget in general terms. Not make it just a hassle, or "void your warranty", just make the attempt to do so *illegal*. How many whitebox shops could get sued now by the big vendors if they chose to do so?
Automotive manufactuerers finally can make it really legal to make it illegal for third party garages to "fix" your car. note:there's a story running on Drudge now over police trials of the new "car zapper" which will let them send a blast of EM aimed at your car to halt it, by screwing up the electronics. The companies (and government) might make hardening attempts against that illegal -means you can't "fix" your car and a mechanic can't/won't take a chance on it- either
Apply the idea to other sorts of appliances and gadgets, most of them are computer controlled now, and they can make them blackbox-you can't open them up at all without violating circumvention and permission. Washers/dryers/stoves, small engines, televisions, all that stuff. The basic main idea of the ruling (it's just an injunction at this point of course) is they-they being any random company with a software/hardware combined product- can state the terms in whatever detail they want, and even if you own the product you have to still follow the terms. It's like applying a copyright license that overrules any normal fair use provisions of normal hardware ownership, if it's a combination product.
I know this is in conflict with other laws, but lately, where are the "wins"? I don't see too many. It seems like it's lose access and rights 99 to 1 lately.
My cellphone stays home as often as not, so no it won't show anything.
Odd, anytime I've seen a protest the location was requested by the "protesters" and was not "provided" by the police. And I've observed individuals walking the sidewalks in protest of various events, and I know they didn't need a permit, and I also know that they were there for the duration of the event(s).
Media coverage tends not to cover peaceful protests for some reason, perhaps because there is no chance of police brutality.
Coverage of the pro-war-in-iraq demonstrations was remarkably sparse, although attendance was signifigantly larger than that of the anti-war groups.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Isn't there already like 3 precedents that have been set that basically shot down using the DMCA to protect your business model? We have the garage door opener thing, the ink cartridge thing, and....I think there was one other.
I mean, if all that is required for locking people into buying service from you is adding some brain dead authentication scheme, thats just lame.
I think StorageTek will loose.
BAH! You're both wrong! Chuckle.
anti-NAT: They sold you a product. They are under no obligation to give you any sort of instruction manual with it.
dave420: They sold you a product. They have no right to restrict your use of your own property. You have every right reverse engineer the documentation for using that device and to publish that documentation. The entire home PC industry was founded on Compaq reverse engineering the IBM PC and IBM BIOS. You have every right to write your own code and to send absolutely any data to your card you like. You have every right to publish your own code so long as you have not committed copyright infringment of their code.
You have no right to demand they help you make your own driver, but they have no right to stop you if you go ahead and do it anyway.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Which of these is true:
- Your population is underinformed, living in fear and being exploited by corporations
- Everything is hunky-dory, just these troublesome terrorists to deal with (but not the causes, obviously) and they only hate us because we're free or something.
Really, something is wrong with America. The diminishing of personal "liberties" (why didn't you say rights?) you're happy to tolerate is just one symptom, and without treatment of the causal disease (and I'm not pretending to know what it is) there's only one inevitability; the death of America. At best, I think you're looking at civil war within 30 years. Insane? Maybe, but did you argue when Reagan funded the Mujaheddin?The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
It's an awful ruling that uses a particular phrase to violate the whole spirit of the law. Email is in transit until it displays on a screen I'm looking at. Saying it can be violated on the way because it is not moving makes about as much sense as saying that my mail can be violated because the postman didn't see me do it. The judge who made that ruling is corrupt or incompetent.
The dire consequence is that email will not be a trusted means of communication and will remain effectively worthless for business purposes.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Oh no, not Meijer too! So much for my cross-border shopping trips if I ever move back to Windsor.
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
They're special that way, they get to right the laws.
You mean write the laws. I wouldn't normally speak up for this kind of error, but we desperately need somebody to right the laws.
Yes, you're right! There is no way for us to point at a clear demarcation between the free world and the orwellian world of the future/present. The most we can do is have certain tenets as our reference points. Individual liberty, human rights, effectiveness of our judicial system, etc. would be some of the metrics by which we can measure this. The internet, being the one medium that allows free and uncontrolled 2-way communication, is IMHO, the last guardian of our liberty.
Don't believe the hype, I can assure you we (Americans) are currently living in a fascist country. Look up the definition if you do not believe me.
Thanks, Bush...assbag.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
A good number of years ago there was a law in Japan that said that you "couldn't be held responsible for anything said/done while intoxicated." This was used as a "get out of jail free" card, so to speak, for some time. Numerous attempts to get the law changed fell on deaf ears... that is until a judge enforced the law to the letter and acquitted a person who was driving drunk hit and killed a child. There was a public outroar and the law stricken from the books.
Sometimes the best way to change a law is to insist on it being enforced.
Except that most public library systems make a point of destroying records of what individual patrons check out, for this very reason.
The ClevNET consortium, in the Cleveland, Ohio area, where I work, for instance, does not retain any personally identifiable information after you return your books, provided that they are returned on time. If they are overdue, your name is kept associated with the book till you pay the fines. And if you have books checked out, that is also recorded.
The library does keep records of which books are checked out, from which libraries, and how often. The public libraries are really the least your worries - we're on the same side in this craziness.
Just in case no one paid attention . . . this is a robotic tape library system. It likely cost more than an average home or car. Not many people purchase these systems anyway . . . and fewer yet after this mess.
:-)
Call it a good thing . . . tape isn't very fast or reliable anyway. Many, many, many more times the speed and capacity is available at near on-line speeds using ATA drive technology.
Push for a technological replacement and put them out of business.
Coverage of the pro-war-in-iraq demonstrations was remarkably sparse, although attendance was signifigantly larger than that of the anti-war groups.
Really? Significantly more than 5 to 7 million people marched in favor of war? You're right, I didn't see that at all.
The pro-war-in-iraq "protests" where engineered by clear channel corporation not a grass roots movement like the anti-war movement.
Being (un/under)informed is a personal choice, and someone who chooses not to be informed has their own set of problems, or lack of problems.
Note that if no-one hates what you are doing, you likely aren't doing anything. Acting gets people pissed, DEAL WITH IT!
I think we've got at least 100 years before the next civil war, the changes from the last one haven't yet been assimilated, and we made it past the chokepoint(1970s)
Believing that corporations exploit any but the willing is a sign that you too are underinformed. I have the use of all the rights I choose to exercise. As does anyone else in the country. I use force(vote). And contrary to any who believe otherwise, a properly written personal letter to your elected representative does have repercussions.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Oops, didn't mean to post AC. Once more, with humility:
Coverage of the pro-war-in-iraq demonstrations was remarkably sparse, although attendance was signifigantly larger than that of the anti-war groups.
Significantly more than 5 to 7 million people marched in favor of war? You're right, I didn't see that at all.
Your voting system is basically a first past the post system. This *really* does effectively mean that any vote not for one of the two major parties is a wasted vote even if the winner is a minority party.
In order for the people to be represented effectively, a proportional representation system would have to be implemented.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
wait 'till the car companies start putting passwords on their engine computers
Notice the "Wait 'till" and the "start."
No one claimed you required a key or password to work on a car. I assume the poster was drawing a parallel between such an activity and what the tape drive manufacturer did.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
You're making the assumption that what you have is actually a democracy. It looks like a two party state to me.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The use of the DMCA may be new, but check out the MAI v Peak case from the early nineties.
Google for "rally for america" Make your own determination, And in response to the AC who claimed it was astroturf just because Clearchannel was involved, try again, I would have attended but for schedule conflicts and many of my friends and family did attend, and CNN reports that only 300 showed up in Denver don't match up with eyewitness reports and pictures from the event showing between 3 and 10k.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
that issue is already budgeted in. if too few people follow your suggestion, the bureau is covered. if too many do that, they increase your taxes to accomodate for the next year. you pay for your own stupid actions. the only way to fight income taxes is to fight to their abolition.
Haha, you were going to attand a rally in favor of invading another country that had never attacked you?
lol, you really are a Good German aren't you?
Sig Heil!
No, they wont, as it cost them millions of dollars to create. Let's not get blinded by our ideologies. It's not right or wrong to be open or closed source - it's personal preference. Having a go at companies for not releasing their intellectual property they spent millions on to the general public for free is incredibly naive.
There's a huge difference between them releasing their intellectual property and simply telling people how interact with that property.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Say you build and sell a widget that you wish to maintain complete control over. Under this ruling, it seems to me, it wouldn't be necessary to go to the trouble of applying passwords and keys and other sophisticated mechanisms to keep people out of your widget. Simply place a piece of tape over the cover and declare that removing this tape violates DCMA. A 3rd party comes along, removes the tape from the widget under permission of the owner (licensee?), and, bam!, you take 'em to court for violation of DCMA. Better yet, only claim the tape is there. You save even that cost. Whats the difference here?
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
If he has to decrypt anything in the process, yes, he would be in violation...
If its not encrypted, or what he does does not have anything to do with the encryption, then no, he's not in violation.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Never attacked me personally or nationally, how about fired on legitimate patrol missions of the northern and southern no-fly zones? not once or twice, but daily for 12 years. Sounds like an attack to me.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
[Hmm... preview ;) Here's what it was supposed to be:]
I plead guilty to posting under influence of not enough sleep and too much coffee, you honour ;-)
Actually it was a reference to my first attempt of reply, which looked very bad and is now at -1...
As for the effect of the protest, even if it was extra overhead, the handlers are still government workers (low pay, strictly specified hours, limited work responsibility, very hard to get rid of) so they probably just leave something less important undone ;)
Write your congressman in a nice self addresses envelope!
/. never changed anything, let your representiative know about it and you'll actaully make a difference.
Ranting on
Unwanted bases in SA?? Unwanted by who?? the nationals making a fair wage, the government who invited us? or some other group??
If you believe you can't opt out of society, I have some Amish neighbors to introduce you to, they don't pay taxes, don't have electricity, and don't put up with the public school system.
is that the resident who tried to blow up stuff??
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
In the US, this might construed as filing a "frivolous" return for which you can be fined quite heavily. IIRC, people have been fined for writing things like "Paid under protest" on their returns.
You were not invited to leave bases in SA, it was one of those "unilateral" decisions the US is so keen on these days. Oh, and you nearly bankrupted the country by charging them 50-odd billion dollars for the bases they didn't want. So, you've chosen to be uninformed?
Yes, that'd be Ted "Theodore" Kacynzki (sp), aka The Unabomber. He wanted to opt out of society too.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Or are people choosing there position based on what type of hardware is involved... ?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Funny? Christ, they would've been called Nazis!
1) a License violation is still a license violation. The DMCA isn't required to
2) Loss leaders aren't the only business model.
3) Trade secrets, keep them secret then, where is the NDA?
Torx screws are not common in the home use world, but any hacker worth his salt has a set of Torx bits for his screwdriver. He may even have a set of "security Torx" bits, which is basically a torx head with a hole drilled in the center. The screw has a shaft sticking out of the middle of it, and the hole in the bit fits over that. Normal Torx bits won't go into the security Torx screws, because of the shaft sticking out. Security Torx was created simply because so many people started getting into things with Torx screws. :)
And those ramp ones are easy, it's just a matter of pressure. See, the ramps are rarely smoothed out entirely, and a little pressure can often be used to break it free. Once it's broken free, the ramps fit the fingers rather nicely and it's out easily.
Lately I've been seeing no head screws, which have me baffled. They're screws that look a lot like a rivet. I'm at a loss to understand how they get them in there. Removing them is easy though, just a pair of hardened needlenose pliers and a steady hand.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Seems all of you saw "DMCA" and decided to rant rather than reading the decision. The issue here is location of the maint. code. If the code was not in the library but rather a STK tech's notebook would you even be having this conversation? This is no different than downloading XP from the net and using a forged product key to use the software. The decision does not bar them from servicing STK products but from using tools that STK developed for their own techs. The only party licensed to use the maint. code was STK, not the owner of the library, not anyone else.
Yeah, the DMCA sucks in many ways but STK is not using the it immorally.
nVidia's cards work with their binary drivers, so what's the beef with nVidia? I assumed (incorrectly) as he was having a pop at nVidia, that it must be due to their closed binary drivers. If he doesn't have a problem with that, what does he have a problem with? They work out of the box...
They are under no obligation to give you any sort of instruction manual with it.
I completely agree.
My motives for wanting these vendors to publish programming information are partly selfish, and partly altruistic.
My selfish reason is that I'd like to have available latest performance graphics hardware, with high quality open source drivers. In particular, this will ensure that bugs in the driver will never outlast the hardware, as with open source code, bugs can be fixed by anybody, even if the vendor isn't interested. Publishing programming information is the first requirement for open source drivers.
My altruistic reason is that these binary modules can cause instability and security problems under Linux. Less knowledgable people may think less of Linux, which of course it wouldn't deserve. Those people may abandon something they may greatly benefit from, based on a false impression.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
My views on the story: if StorageTek tells the customer "you can't get a 3rd party in to fix your StorageTek hardware" then the customer shouldn't get 3rd parties in to fix it. StorageTek have made it pretty clear they don't want people monkeying around with their stuff, so how can anyone defend someone who is going against something they've already agreed to? Just because the 3rd party in question has the key doesn't mean to say they're allowed to use it.
Basically, if you buy something from someone and it comes with an agreement or license, and you agree to it, you have to follow it to the letter. Saying it costs you more if you do, or it conflicts with your ideology isn't anyone else's problem but yours.
I know it, and you know it, and millions of others know it and see it in lots of things the US is doing, but for some reason the Americans act a little funny when you throw in the N word. There's also Godwin's Law to be considered.
But yes, as a goddamn-provable fact, little national symbols and jingoism of the "Homeland" type can be seen in fascist states ad nauseum, and can be seen in the US today. Even without drawing any conclusions from this fact, this isn't a popular observation. It's traditional to stick to comparing it to fictional fascist states, through the use of "Peace is war", or perhaps "We're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others". Say there's any similarity between 2004 USA and 1923 Germany and you're firmly in the wacko camp. You're either with us or with the terrorists, don't forget, so if I were to say something outlandish and fantastic like "global warming is a proven occurrence and is caused by burning hydrocarbons", I'm basically showing my support for UBL and am only half a step away from sawing some poor fuck's head off.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
DMCA = not allowed to discover
Just let that sink in. How unamerican can you get? Sheesh.
This reminds me that I'm curious as to whether there's any principle in law (anywhere) which would enable one to treat the IP in an orphaned product as abandoned property? At least to the extent that, if a manufacturer refuses to service the product anymore, one is automatically protected from any claims the manufacturer may make when one reverse-engineers just the bits he needs to repair it himself?
It still, at the very least, would cost postage and the price of the paper check and the envelope, etc - multiply that by thousands or hundreds of thousands and it just might get some notice.
We have a third party providing support for our clariions and have yet to be taken to court or have the third party taken to court over their service.
We also recently purchased a StorageTek SAN and have been looking at their tape libraries. My boss is going to be quite upset when he hears about this court case; iirc he specifically asked the sales rep a number of times about third party support and it was never mentioned as being a problem.
The Maintenance Code is copyrighted material and protected intellectual property of StorageTek. The use of the event messages generated by the maintenance code by the 3rd party maintenance vendor is thus copyright infringement. This is an open-and-shut case and shouldn't set a bad precedent in my opinion. It's upholding copyright law.
Greg Poirier -- Magic Fairy Bunny Princesses, Inc.
there are no cameras at any intersection where I live.
How do you know? Were you expecting a big public announcement when any cameras were put up? Where I live, "homeland security" is now legally an acceptable excuse for not telling the public exactly where they're being watched. I wouldn't be surprised if it's also become an acceptable excuse for not even mentioning the existance of smaller cameras at all.
Ten thousand (or more) people not paying their taxes WOULD be an exellent and effective form of protest EXCEPT that the leaders of any such movement would be hunted down and treated as harshly as legally possible.
ONLY publicly advocate such a thing if you are willing to be fined EVERY PENNY you own AND jailed for contempt for an INDEFINITE period of time.
The US government DOES NOT PLAY AROUND when it comes to attacking its LIFEBLOOD (money).
On the other hand, simply not paying your own taxes is practically ignored if you are average income and a paycheck from being broke (ie don't have enough assets to pay the salary of the enforcing tax oficials).
In other words, "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose".
Yeah, my first thought, too. StorageTek is officially off the list of vendors I'll consider for our backup needs. But hey, it's just a few filers, what do they care?
A few filers here, a few filers there, pretty soon you're talking about their whole market.
The purchasing department should never EVER have any say whatsoever in the choice of a brand name. NEVER! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? NEVER! Purchasing people should not have the power to override the request from the only person that is actually knowledgable on the item being bought. Do you think your purchasing dept should be able to take your order for 20 Dell 2650 servers and change that to ones made by Compaq? After all they are both server and the only real difference is cost and brand name, right? Ha! I was once involved in a little project to research and buy UPSs for all the wiring closets on campus. Myself and a few other technical people researched a few brands and went in depth on a number of models that seemed to fit our needs. We settled on APC. I had a number of phone calls with the folks with specs on our hardware to make sure that their product would fit our needs. The boss approved the expenditure and told us to make it happen. We sent the order to our dept's purchasing (our own in-house purchasing person that worked for us, not campus purchasing). The order was detailed with brand name and specific models numbers. A month later when the boxes and boxes of UPSs we were expecting hadn't shown up we asked her to call whoever she bought them from and get an update on the order with tracking details. That's when she told us she hadn't placed the order. When she called her "sources" to find the best product for us (excuse me, we already foudn the products we want!) she was told about a special on Minuteman UPSs that would get us free frieght to our door. She guessed she must have forgot to tell us. She told us to look at their products and pick from what they offered. Oh, and do it by the end of the week so she could get free freight and save the dept big $$. ARGH!!! She was part of the damned project that picked APC UPS. I about came unfucked at that point. When that business and I parted ways a year later they still hadn't bought any UPSs for the wiring closets. See what happens when you give purchasing the power to decide brand names? See what happens when you give purchasing the power to make any decision whatsoever on a purchase? Everyone has to feel like they rule their domain.
Well, it seems that a good deal of people dont mind getting their fix if it's cisco and others similar, but if it's anyone else like Storagetek it seems to be fair game for applying the flame. It's gotten to the point where companies are starting to tout the lack of the "drug dealer" businesss model, even if it's just Adtran. The only thing is that Adtran and the like need to be able to beat cisco at its own game, to look like a real contender in networking equipment so that the drug dealers are forced to scale back or drop their efforts.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fourth%2 0Branch
says:
The so-called fourth branch of government is not an actual branch of government, like the executive branches, but is instead an unofficial name sometimes given to several different groups which deal with the government. It is most often applied to special interests or to the mass media.
Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is the branch of a government charged with implementing, or executing, the law. The de facto most senior figure in an executive is referred to as the head of government. The executive may be referred to as the administration, in presidential systems, or simply as the government, in parliamentary systems.
A legislature is a governmental deliberative body with the power to adopt laws. Legislatures are known by many names, including: parliament, congress, diet and national assembly. In parliamentary systems of government, the legislature is formally supreme and appoints the executive. In presidential systems of government, the legislature is considered a branch of government which is equal to, and independent of, the executive. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise taxes and adopt the budget and other money bills. The consent of the legislature is also often required to ratify treaties and declare war.
The judiciary, also referred to as the judicature, consists of justices, judges and magistrates among other types of adjudicators. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is one of the three branches of government. The primary function of the judiciary is to adjudicate legal disputes. The judiciary is also responsible for interpreting the law, but while in some legal systems
A special interest is a person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of one particular interest or issue. In the UK, a group which specifically aims to influence public policy is known as a pressure group. Examples of special interests might include a corporation lobbying to win a specific government contract; a trade association representing the interests of an entire industry seeking favorable tax policies or government regulations; or groups representing various sectors of society, such as labor unions, senior citizens or persons with disabilities.
The mass media is the whole body of media reaching large numbers of the public via radio, television, movies, magazines, newspapers and the World Wide Web. The term was coined in the 1920s with the advent of nationwide radio networks, mass-circulation newspapers and magazines.
The mass media reaches a mass audience. That audience has been viewed by some commentators as forming a mass society with special characteristics, notably atomization or lack of social connections, which render it especially susceptable to the influence of modern mass media techniques such as advertising and propaganda.
IANAL, but after reading the injunction itself, all I can think is, "Holy cow! I may have broken the DMCA myself!"
We have a large piece of CNC (computer numerical control) manufacturing equipment. The machine is purchased, not leased. The software controlling it is proprietary, but runs on a Windows NT console. The manufacturer's idea of securing their IP is to give access to the controlling software only through the Administrator logon. The OEM keeps the Administrator password.
We use the machine through an operator logon that can only execute the software, and has no access to Win NT utilities or controls. As the OEM would have it, we have no Administrator access to the OS.
We wanted to network the system, so we wheedled a field technician into giving us the Administrator password. Now it sounds as if we are violating DMCA if we log on to the console as Administrator!
To complicate matters further, I don't know whether our purchase contract says anything about whether we or the OEM hold the license to Win NT. Normally, I would expect the owner of the hardware to also own the OS license, and we've behaved as such; we've even changed the admin password. But from what I've read today, then doesn't the DMCA allow the OEM to prohibit us from having Administrator access to our own licensed OS?
This is all just entirely too weird for me.
I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
WHAT DOES THAT BALANCE LOOK LIKE IN ACTION ???
The below is an on line editorial stolen whole:
Steve Sebelius: The fourth branch
As it turns out, state Sen. Dina Titus was right: The Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada really is a fourth branch of government.
Unfortunately, it's just not our government.
You've already heard about the many and varied violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law committed by regents, aided and abetted by system lawyers who are so consistently wrong, it's a miracle the Bush administration hasn't sought them out to be the attorneys for detainees at Guantanamo.
You've already read about antics like the hiring of legislators' lady friends, the demotions of generally well-respected presidents and the reassigning of savvy going-along and getting-along lobbyists. And you've pondered the need for a four-year college of something-or-other on every corner in town.
But this one is a doozy.
First, a little background: Under the state constitution, the university system is created by the Legislature. That means the powers and duties of the university (not to mention its budget) are mandated by the constitution, and the Legislature. And the Legislature has decided, in the Nevada Revised Statutes, that out-of-state students who have been "bona fide" residents of Nevada for at least six months don't have to pay out-of-state tuition.
But back in 1995, apparently under the advice of then-general counsel Don Klasic, the board of regents adopted a policy that said out-of-state students do have to pay out-of-state tuition for one year, according to a report by the Review-Journal's Erin Neff. Klasic reportedly believed the six-month requirement was unconstitutional.
Which is surprising, because most Nevadans thought -- under a mountain of evidence -- that neither the board of regents nor their attorneys even knew there was a constitution, much less what was in it.
Too harsh? Not really. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who is an employee of the Community College of Southern Nevada and in that capacity ultimately answers to the regents, said the board has resisted legislative mandates in the past, preferring to go to court rather than cede authority to the Legislature.
"They have their own lawyers, who are paid for by taxpayer dollars," Giunchigliani says. "And our only recourse is to go to court and sue our own system that was created by the constitution."
As if on cue, the Las Vegas Sun newspaper reported Wednesday that university general counsel Tom Ray said this: "First they (regents) have to decide, how important is the 12-month requirement? If it isn't important, they can amend the policy to six months," Ray said.
Translated, that means if the regents decide they want to comply with the law, they can. Oh, sweet joy.
But what if they don't?
"If it is (important), I will recommend filing an action in court seeking a determination from a judge on whether it's constitutional or not for the board to set the policy," Ray told the Sun.
Translated, that means if the regents decide they want to ignore their oaths of office (which call for supporting the state constitution) Ray will be more than happy to bear arms against the government of the state of Nevada. Legally speaking, that is.
Giunchigliani has championed a bill that mandates six regents be appointed by the governor and three be elected, one from each congressional district. The bill, an amendment to the state constitution, was approved by the 2003 Legislature, and must be passed by the 2005 Legislature before it goes to the voters.
Another reform might be to require the attorney general's office to represent the board of regents, instead of in-house lawyers. The attorney general's office, by the way, has the nice folks who come in to clean up the legal mess after every other board of regents meeting.
But these changes better happen quick, before thi
Does this not describe the StorageTek case exactly?
Quote: Only as long as people keep believing that. This whole "voting 3rd party is a wasted vote" thing is a just self-fulfilling prophecy.
No, it's absolutely true.
What we need is Condorcet voting. With Condorcet voting you can vote for whomever you want without wasting your vote.
IANAL, but I think that at least this clause of the DMCA could be challenged effectively in court. Here is my reasoning:
Eldred vs. Ashcroft dealt with the fundamental question of whether retroactive copyright extension violated the "limited times" clause in the constitution. The majority opinion stated that they did not feel that perpetual copyright was the intention of Congress, and that they saw no reason to consider this 20 year extension unconstitional. There did not seem to be any disagreement with the general idea that perpetual copyrights are unconstitutional.
The DMCA effectively mandates a perpetual copyright for all digital media with access control technologies. It does this by banning circumvention technologies. These access control technologies can then be used to further enforce EULA-like restrictions on the works even after they lapse into the public domain.
Imagine, if you will, a world where Shakespear's plays were all originally published in e-book format. Now, 350 years later, we would STILL be paying royalties to the publishing houses in order to perform the plays. And an essential aspect of our culture would be greatly diminished. Limited copyright terms exist for a reason. The DMCA made an attempted run around this concept, and so the offending portion of the law needs to be removed.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
a purchasing department should (ideally, har har) consider TCO of a new piece of equipment.
No, the people putting in the purchase order should consider TCO. Do you expect the purchasing dept to understand the difficulties involved in any particular piece of equipment, be it a fridge, desk, truck, light fixture, server or software?
I expect the electricians to know the TCO involved with the light fixture purchasing for the buidlings, i expect groundspeople to know what kind of trees to plant and the TCO for those plants, and everyone else expects me to know TCO for servers and (more importantly) the solutions i outline.
-- rights to recover you own data ?
- None. If the disk gets scratched then go buy another copy. Remember, it's "good for the economy" every time you spend money.
Not to jump out like a troll while you try to cross the bridge of understanding, but It would seem to me that if they were trying to recover their own data, that would be data that they had created. Not a program disk that got scratched.
Now, what do the binary-only drivers do?
* Either they just control the card and don't contain any algorithms themselves. In that case, there's nothing to be protected there.
* Or they do indeed have some algorithms to protect, so what do they have to lose if they open up the card interface (so that OSS programmers can write their own drivers), but keep those algorithms private?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I live in the UK, and I see law after law coming out like Govt snooping laws etc and no-one in the population much gives a toss. It seems that as long as people have their tin of beer and football on TV, then what happens to others just don't matter.
Every time, much like in the USA, the "threat of terrorism" joker is played. And there's not much hope that voting for either of the two main parties are going to change anything.
Still, there will probably be some country about to take advantage when anyone with any get up and go does just that and finds somewhere with more freedom to work and live.
In this case, the owner of the StorageTek device is arguably the copyright holder as it is *their* data in *their* tape machine.
While your points about how copyright holders hold all of the cards according to the DMCA, in this case it's data that was backed up onto those archives by the rightful owners of that data.
This is more analogous to be buying a safe, having something go wrong with the safe, and needing to hire a safe-smith to open it.
Only in this case, the manufacturer of the safe is saying it is illegal for the safe technician to open the safe since they've circumvented the combination lock.
It makes no sense whatsoever that the argument that the copyright holder gets to restrict you. If you sold me hardware to store *my* data, your rights to what I do with my data are non-existent.
This is most decidedly not a copyright issue. This is using the DMCA to prevent people from legitimate uses of their own *hardware* which is used to backup their own *data*. Very different animals.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1984
The company I work for was about to buy a whole boatload of new storagetek libraries as the old ones are being EOL'd. Screw Storagetek. I guess this means that when the ones we have break we can't get them fixed. Thanks a lot Bill Clinton for the DCMA (yet another bad law he passed).
Desktops are easy enough to be talked through a simple hardware deal(new card, ram upgrade, etc), but laptops are a whole other ball of wax. I dont even like taking apart my laptop, and i've built numerous desktops. Joe User can probably screw in and install a new hard drive in his dell, but he shouldn't be poking around in his laptop.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Hmm, people have been running away from the free USA to the oppressive Mexico or Canada for centuries, for various good reasons. However, I never thought that a stupid law like the DMCA could add impetus to that in modern times.
I call BS. The cellphone operators aren't actively calcuating the postion of phones on the network, only on demand. Also, some (most?) phones allow this to be turned off or only on during a 911 call.
I read the below comment and thought "This certainly bears repeating."
Are you absolutely certian that you'd recognize it if it was here?
Perpetual state of war, government controlling the flow of the "free press," re-writing the language (e.g. patriot act), government can review your reading habits without a warrant, there are cameras at every major intersection, cameras located on every isle of meijer, government can listen to your phone conversations with little oversight,,, Did you know you need a permit to protest in public?
At what point do you step back and say... OK, now is it orwellian?
May be an urban legend, but here goes... Going over the elements in soph. chemistry, our teacher had stories for a lot of em. Of course for copper he starts talking about pennies. He told us back in the 80s or some time, some Libertarian group protested by paying their taxes entirly in pennies. As the story goes, the IRS talked the treasury dept into making pennies not legal tender anymore. So you cant pay your taxes in pennies, if you try to pay for something in pennies you can be refused (for reasons other than being a jerk :D) and thats why those souvineer penny squishing machines are legal, since its illegal to destroy currency. Anyone know if this is true or not?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
They really, really don't give a monkey's toss about the rights of a few individuals in special circumstances. Hypothetically, if the UK government saw that having Windows only running on PCs was a way of raising over 100 million UKP (and didn't affect govt. departments), they'd do it. Sure, many thousands of Linux users would protest, but there would be no media campaign (try getting a heartstrings story out of geekdom). Most folks would just say "So?" and the numbers affected would make no difference to voting, whilst 100 million UKP to spend on another pointless govt. project would make good headlines.
Not activly ussually, but they can tell where you placed/recieved a call from, even without a GPS enabled cell. And if you needed to be found or whatever and your phone was turned on, they could probably track you, but they dont keep records of that. Linky. Scary. Dont feel like digging up true life examples, but they frequently do this on Law & Order, which is a pretty accurate show, from a technical, legal and procedural standpoint.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
1) Check to make sure you are allowed 3party services and products 2) If not, Don't buy their products
The injuction itself makes interesting reading:
o ra getekdmca.pdf
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/LegalDocs/st
You seem to miss the point of a *sale*. If you sell a widget for $1, I don't care how many billions you spent on the widget, you and I had a meeting of minds and you agreed that we would exchange one widget for one dollar.
... I'm free to use or abuse my printer as I see fit. For the printer to actively conprire against my right to try to use beer instead of ink, or oh my gosh, another firms ink, means that I'm getting something both a bit more and a bit less than I bargined for.
... as long as I use their somewhat marked up oil they will fix my furnace for free. We both agreed to this up front, right down to details such as what they will and won't do and what my markup is.
... nobody snuck a furnace into my house that will refuse to burn another firms oil. In fact, the irony is that there is nothing short of the honor system and the hassle of hauling it up in cans that prevents me from getting home heating oil at the local gas station for a bit less. Printers are very different ... there is neither any indicaiton that I'm locked nor any consideration for being so. Would I choose to be locked in on a printer ... I don't know, perhaps if they offered lifetime service on my printer I would.
Just as you received a full dollar from me, I expect to receieve cosideration as described during the exchange.
To use the oft cited Lexmark example, if Lexmark sells me a printer for $1 our obligations end with what was agreed on - $1 in exchange for a printer and warrenty. Now the printer is mine
For an analogy of how this works in the real world, consider the heating oil contracts that so many get in the US. I have a deal with my oil provider
Defenders of this practice are probally saying "see, it happens outside of the computer industry." The difference is consent
Just as I can't whine about being short of funds to get out of honoring my side of the agreement (to pay) nvidia or the printer company can't get out of their side of the agreement by citing high R&D costs. The correct action would have been for me to haggle for less or them to ask for more.
Oh, but you can't raise the cost because the consumer won't by? Well, if the customer wants it they will pay for it and if they don't then you should not have done the R&D. I'd rather not have a printer/video card etc than think I'm getting on e only to find that I've been cheated later. You don't actually have a right to your customres money, no matter how mistaken you belive they are for not giving it to you.
I'll admit that appears to be a witty comment.
But Open source isn't a business model.
can review your reading habits without a warrant
They've always been able to review your reading habits and the FBI has considered library checkout records and magazine subscription info to be critical to investigations for at least 20 years.
Funny story: the only 2 things they need a warrant to get are a wire tap and access to your video rental records. What happened is that back when Bork was being considered for the supreme court there was a reporter who didn't like Bork and went digging for dirt on him. He got Bork's video rental records, hoping to find that he was into some wierd porn or something but found that Bork's only odditity was a strong liking for John Wayne movies. The reporter was dissappointed but still had a deadline for a story so he published an article anyway.
When certain members of Congress realized that just anybody could dig up what videos they like to rent they went ballistic and tried to implement a law that would require a warrant to access things like video rental records and magazine subscription info. The law enforcement community threw a fit, saying that book and magazine records were critical to investigations so Congress settled for simply placing protections on video rental records.
Corporations which temporarily or casually reside in the US (Which means ANY corp.) already have more rights and abilities than persons. Especially rich corps which have accumulated billions of $ worth of extra legal rights in the form of past judgments and investments in their own legal departments which keep track of how to use new laws like the DMCA and other things like the NAFTA.
It is also these legal departments that decide which and how much money goes to the various lobbyist campaigns which are actually a new billion dollar industry onto themselves. Even the fairly new "Astroturf" industry looks like it is worth about a billion bucks.
Of course this can be reversed but since 50% of your citizens can't even get off their buts to even vote the chances don't look good. So I guess step one is to care enough to educate yourself to know what is happening, oh yea and GET GEORGE BUSH OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
Corporations also have another perverse and dangerous advantage over persons, Corporations are immortal.
The copyrighted item which is protected is the maintance level code. You can't get to it any other way.
If you buy something that has any trade secrets applied to its development or operation, the trade secrets remain property of the company that owns them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's not legal to "maintain" a monopoly either, by abusing the monopoly power over the market. This hasn't been enforced in recent history though.
"Your recent litigation made slashdot.org headlines. Your shameful exercise of the DMCA has been broadcast to one of the largest tech communities in the entire world. The result is, you have generated extraordinary negative publicity targeted at the very people in charge of purchasing your products and services, worldwide. Way to go."
The problem with this logic of turning all men into criminals is that once one becomes a criminal, one tends to act like one. When to get the bread you need you must break a law that puts you in the same catigory as the thief, why not steal the bread. When Stealing bread has a penalty like killing someone why not kill when you steal as dead men tell no tales. and when men become lawless the govement can no longer rule them.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Solution for those who *really* don't want customers disassembling their products; screws with the holes in the shape of a popular (and very copyrighted(*)) character; e.g. Mickey Mouse, Hello Kitty, etc.
Now you can sue anyone making a compatible screwdriver under copyright laws as well (since a compatible screwdriver is likely to resemble the cartoon character)! Company restricts compatible screwdrivers to those who are "meant" to have them; problem "solved".
One possible problem; it might be possible to make a Hello Kitty compatible screwdriver that doesn't infringe the Hello Kitty image by omitting *just* enough bits that it can still grip whilst not looking like Sanrio's cash cow, er... kitty.
(*) Yeah, or whatever the law that covers this sort of thing is; IP, copyright, trademark, whatever.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Yes, my taxes last year worked out that I owed $1.30 more than Revenue Canada already deducted, so I did not have to pay. Ha! Ha!
But it is easy to circumvent that problem -- pay $3.00 more than you owe. It hardly makes a financial difference, for the sake of protest, to be paying $3 instead of $1. If they put the window up to a high enough value to discourage people from over-paying in protest, well, then they are also going to lose more revenue as people don't have to pay for the small amounts owed.
"What I'm not sure of is if they carry this ahead to the next year, or if it's just forgotten."
I'm not sure either. I'm tempted to declare the $1.30 as income next year and see what happens (hmmm... I guess it is a debt forgiven, effectively).
When have NVIDIA or ATI used the DMCA to prevent people from servicing their products? It's certainly the first I've heard of it.
funny. the first time i went to change the blinker bulbs in my dodge ram, i discovered that i needed a phillips driver for the rear, and a torx-6 for the front.
i carry a full compliment of different drivers in my truck, now-a-days.
Um, have you SEEN a Symmetrix? Are you sure you want just ANYONE touching that mass of drives, controllers and aluminum nastiness? Only with a sledgehammer, man...
Client: I'm having trouble with my Storage-Tek....
Vendor: Okay, bring it in...
A few hours pass.
Vendor: Um, we've got kind of a problem here...
Client: What is it?
Vendor: Well, it turns out that the DMCA prohibits us from accessing or repairing your hardware.
Client: So, what exactly does that mean?
Vendor: Well, per contract, you agreed that submitting a DMCA-protected device for service would render the full value of the contract due immediately. This is a DMCA-protected device, so your full 5-year service contract will be due before we return the device.
Client: Okay, but is it usuable? I mean, can we get our data back.
Vendor: Unfortunately, no. It would be illegal.
Client: So you're screwing us, right?
Vendor: No, you screwed us. You bought hardware that was illegal for us to service. We can't do anything for you without breaking the law.
Client: What do you mean, illegal?! It's our data.
Vendor: Um, yes, it is your data. But you don't own the software which controls access to it - Storage-Tek does. And since this software is restricted by the DMCA, you can't legally access your data without Storage-Tek's permission. Your only option at this point is to return the device to them.
Client: So let me get this straight: You're going to charge us a full five year contract, and you don't even fix the machine?! How can you keep clients like this?
Vendor: Truth is, we can't. That's why you agreed in the contract not to send us DMCA-restricted devices. Since we cannot legally service DMCA restricted hardware, we can't restore your data. And this is why you agreed in the contract to pay off the full value of the contract if you did so - as compensation for the fact that we can no longer do business with you.
Client: So what happens if Storage-Tek goes out of business? What would you do then?
Vendor: It's not what we would do, it is what you would do. You'd probably go out of business because no one would legally be able to service your Storage-Tek machines. The next time they failed, you would irretrievably lose all of your data.
Client: So, how could we avoid this in the future?
Vendor: Simple - buy a machine that isn't DMCA-restricted.
Client: But we obviously didn't know this when we bought these machines...
Vendor: Well, it's not my problem you want to break the law....
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
From one of the first links listed in your google search:
So, as I said, this feature can be turned off (it usually is), thus requiring active tracking.
I am so BORED of reading this quote...
For the love of God, please find someone else to express your (!) thoughts for you.
Simple, comfortable, really really solidly built and fairly cheap to run. I've just picked up a manual for my '88 CX - 25 from a garage that was closing down. Great stuff. But the main thing is the Rolls-Royce comfort and Massey-Ferguson simplicity. I don't think I've ever driven a nicer car (and I've driven some pretty good cars).
Did you just imply that the US nearly bankrupted Saudi Arabia??? The country that owns ~7% of the US???
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
That applies to GPS-assisted devices; your average GSM mobile can be tracked to within a couple of hundred feet (less in closely populated areas) at all times it's switched on, without your knowledge or consent. There's websites in the UK that allow exactly this, with just a confirmation SMS required to activate it.
From a records point of view, generally it is only which cells your phone has registered with (not necessarily making a call), but signal strength data and some fancy computing would give you away retroactively to more accuracy than I'd care for personally.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
The ones I know when faced with decisions like that, decide it is much safer to avoid vendors who have BS contracts like that. Risk and uncertainty scare corporations and contracts like that are high on both counts.
If you've ever dealt with PHBs the sure way to get their attention is 'risk' and 'bottom line'.
...but rather because lawmakers always favor corporations over individuals.
Thus corporations enjoy more protection and exercise more rights under the law than individuals do.
The corporation at fault gets off scot free while the innocent individual gets shafted.
This issue is usually called the "abandonware debate". Here's some more reading:
Wired News: Nostalgia Keeps Games Afloat
Home of the Underdogs
Abandonware from back before 1986
Abandonware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brass Lantern Warez Abandonware and the Software Industry
When you finish reading some of this stuff, you really start thinking the current length of copyright is really, really out of hand (as if there wasn't enough evidence of that already.)
i am a soviet space shuttle
My company has voluntarily given third party service personnel access to our systems. Why? Because anything else would constitute abuse of monopoly. So says our lawyer. Through copyright, we have a legal monopoly on the software in our systems (just like all proprietary software vendors). Thus any attempt to prevent competition from third party service vendors crosses the line.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I don't know if they actually do store signal strength, but I can certainly see a reason why the would. I'm not sure what legislation could passed to prevent this. Even if they passed legislation requiring your explicit permission to do this tracking, it would just be another line in a lengthy contract you have to sign to get a cell phone anyway.
Open source is just accelerating the inevitable results of a free market.
The economy is a closed system. Every dollar taken by software is one dollar less that can be invested somewhere else in the organization.
If a company needs new software, and it is worthwhile they will buy it, Off the shelf or custom written, and someone will have a job.
If it isn't worthwhile they won't buy it and someone won't have a job.
Artifically forcing a company to buy new software will create jobs, but forces the company to spend money that isn't worthwhile is just a waste.
If I understand Ayn Rand's philosophy correctly, a vendor may make the terms of the contract any way he wants them to be, and if the buyer accepts them (even having no other choice), the vendor is entitled to enforce the terms of the contract.
If I understand DMCA, it is to help vendors enforce the terms of their contracts with regard to intellectual property, and to make criminals of people who do not respect this property right.
Therefore, I should more expect to see Rand quoted in defense of DMCA than in opposition to it.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
This just adds to my storagetek list...
I've got an older 60 slot lilbrary from them already that I inherited from a sister company. I called to try and get it on maintenance and they want 2x the cost of what it would cost for me to replace the unit with a higher capacity current model from another vendor, for a 1 year maintenace contract for that unit.
That coupled with the fact that I had to call them 4 times before I even was able to get to talk to someone who could provide me a quote didin't leave me that impressed with them either.
Have to admit though, a few years ago I was opening a new site and we put in a powderhorn 9310 with a big tv next to it (for the picker camera). With the unit running a pick/place test the thing is like a geek magnet. We had guys just staring at it in a trance for hours.
This is nothing new. You buy a dell computer you put your own patches, software and make the OS far from what came out-of-the-box. You call their support, they can deny you all they want even though you just paid for the service. The trick is to NOT let them know.
Yeah, I've been heard to suggest that, once a work has been published, refusal to continue publishing for more than some reasonable period (say, two years) should automatically place the work into the public domain. (There'd have to be some rule about not just raising the price 1000x to keep the work without ever having to actually sell it again.)
Actually, if the copyright expired on a work and you circumvented the protection on that work
Doesn't matter. If a device is sufficient to circumvent the DRM on an older work whose copyright has expired, it's also sufficient to circumvent the DRM on a newer work still under copyright, and thus it's a banned circumvention device. Without a circumvention device, one physically cannot circumvent DRM, even if one otherwise has every right to do so.
Okay, first note: this is a preliminary injunction, NOT a court decision. The issue has not been decided, but BOTH parties agreed that an injunction was appropriate pending a decision by the court. At some point in the future, there will be a court decision on whether the owner of the hardware was allowed to have someone else work on it without putting them in violation of DMCA. In the meantime, disclosure of the codes would have caused irreparable harm to the IP of Storage Tek, rendering such a decision meaningless. Does this mean Storage Tek will win eventually? I hope not. But it doesn't mean that (as one poster said) "Activist judges are using the DMCA to stifle American competitiveness"! Get serious. It's the LAWYERS, not the judges...
href="http://i-cias.com/e.o/saudi_5.htm">1993: USA asks Saudi Arabia to pay for the Gulf War, that costed USA alone US$51 billion. This came in a time when the Saudi economy was facing severe problems, with budget deficits.Or how aboutAnd yes, now they own significant interests in the US, a lot of them stemming from James Baker et al. That was the point; interesting how their fortunes here have changed in just 10 years. Also don't get the personal wealth of the ruling family and the wealth of the country confused; you can be certain they're 2 very seperate things.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
I was talking to my STK guy today about this. He said what actually happened was the company bypassed the password via bruteforce to use proprietary maintenance software. It was the use of this software which was really at issue. If they had used their own software to perform the maintenance, it would have been kosher. In this case, the spirit of the DMCA does apply here.. they illegally bypassed security measures which protected proprietary software which was not licensed to them OR the customer who gave the 3rd party "permission" to perform the work.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Nice! Now any manufactured item with any logic
component could be brought into the DMCA, maybe
retroactively. What happened to the Constitutional
provision not part of the Bill of Rights that made
illegal any 'Ex Post Facto' law.
Now if we want to work on our own cars, it will be illegal to even try to do so. DMCA goons may go so far as to command the police and army to go house to house in order to seize all socket wrenches, ratchet and end wrenches as these can be used to 'aid in circumventing' their cars' 'security'. Think of it!
Cops WILL try to enforce such a broad search if only to use it for a carte blanche excuse to look for anything else that might interest them as well.
Time to emigrate to another country folks! This on has gone to hell. Poor dumb Mexicans don't know what they are getting into. A lot of
them are going back as it is.
I think that I will go to Mexico after I retire. My social security will go a lot farther there than here. I might even open a garage right on the border near Nuevo Laredo catering to refugee American 'gringos' who want their cars worked on for less.
The FDA must approve any medical equipment, or device to be used internally or by application of energy to a person. NO device may be MARKETED which is not repairable. By "NOT REPAIRABLE" they mean if the manufacturer refuses to provide necessary software to do the repairs where such software exists. The case law was General Electric Medical Systems v. R Squared Scan Systems. Third party repairer R Squared used diagnostic software which was shipped with each CAT SCANNER or MRI by GE.
GE sued claiming that the software belonged to them and was for use only by their service personnel. The FDA Rules were used by the court in making it's decision.
When out in the field I cannot repair it? (Maintainance Key?) This just lost StorageTek for recommendations for me.
I.. cannot believe I was just on thier website friday looking at the solutions and considering it.
Thank you Slashdot for alerting me to this fatal flaw.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
How about a Geography lesson!
In what Ocean or Sea are the Isles of Meijer?!
There are three words to help you get through many challenges.
Accept, adapt and overcome.
Of course in some circles that is quite the common statement.
What will these companies do when our memories last longer than the DMCA?
Privileges granted under the DMCA are part of copyright. Thanks to the four main stages of copyright term extension, especially the third which established "life-plus" copyright terms, our memories are guaranteed not to last longer than copyright.
Considering less than 50% voted in the last election, America has exactly the government it deserves. Welcome to democracy.
how exactly can you "infringe trade secrets"? By definition, it's not secret anymore.
There exist ways to violate contracts involving trade secrets other than by publishing the trade secrets. Often, in addition to a non-disclosure clause, the contract around a trade secret will specify exactly what the licensee is permitted to do with the information.
A couple sections come to mind . . .
The notice-and-takedown process also includes a lovely counter-notice procedure. All you need to do is send a letter to your ISP stating you disagree with the original notice, and the content goes back up. The DMCA even gives the ISP a deadline.
The DMCA also provides a safe harbor for ISPs. Without this provision, no ISP in their right mind would let individuals post on the web - they'd be the deep-pockets defendant in an infringement/contributory infringement case. IMHO, the internet would be a vastly different place without this provision.
Backup storage arrays are durable goods, and there exist significant, often prohibitive, costs of switching to a different, incompatible backup storage array. These switching costs form a barrier to other businesses who sell backup storage arrays.
True, but Lexmark lost.
They can track a lot better than just what cell you're in when making a call. If you're within range of 3 towers, they can triangulate your location pretty well by how the signals handled by the towers.
It's very simple, really. The problem is the same problem that has plagued mankind from the beginning. Greed tops the list of what is wrong with governments throughout history. This is nothing new.
Greed: n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (esp material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)
Once the ability exists to go beyond unimaginable material wealth, the only game left in town is acquisition of power.
This is where we are today.
We should start referring to processes which run in the background by their correct technical name... paenguins.
There may be some corruption the 3 movies and 35 books linked in the article did not document.
How can anyone have a casual look at links to 3 movies and 35 books that say the same thing, and deny that there is something happening? Especially when some of the authors are Republicans, and former officials of the Bush administration?
I've found that people really, really, really don't want to accept that their government is largely corrupt.
Instead of accepting, for example, the video clip in Fahrenheit 9/11 that shows George W. Bush holding hands with Saudi Prince Bandar, those who want to deny reality attack Michael Moore. But no one denies that the clip is real, or that the Bush family calls him "Bandar Bush". But many people deny the obvious conclusions.
Here's the link again. I suggest you have a closer look at the summaries of the 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
The sole purpose of such encryption would be to protect the company's monopoly on charging for maintenance.
No amount of technological jiggery-pokery could "protect" a copyright. Copyright law protects copyright. Copyright is a legal fiction that extends the [western] idea of fairness and has no roots in reality. The DMCA is a bad law because it's irrational and is being applied irrationally. Breaking a code to access protected information might at best be considered tresspass in a rational court under a rational law.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Lexmark lost.
EMC absolutely does not lock you into a contract with *only* EMC. I speak from experience having two EMC FC4700 storage arrays under my watch and having had certain types of maintenance done by other companies with no adverse affect on my warranty and certainly no draconian lawsuits befalling the contractors we used.
It would seem to me that if they were trying to recover their own data, that would be data that they had created.
If I buy a song or movie or software or whatever, legally I am the owner of that copy (at least under US law). Copyright law deals specificlly with ownership of copyrights as distinct from ownership of individual copies. Once a copyrightholder sells a specific copy he is *not* the owner of that copy. And when a copyright holder licences someone else to create copies, the person who creates the copy is the owner, not the copyright holder.
Ownership of copyrights (the rights of copy) is entirely seperate from ownership of actual copies.
So yes, it *is* my data, and yes, the DMCA imprisons me for backing up or otherwise recovering *my* data.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sorry to hear that, sounds like you have stupid purchasing people. They're not all cretins (unlike HR.)
The purchasing people rule nothing except for having a say in the budget. If I wanted to buy an E15k but we had $50k in the kitty, well, that's it for my E15k.
You can exchange "bean-counters" for "purchasing idiots" for all I care, but no matter what you buy it's still gotta conform to some sort of budget reality, that's (unfortunately) part of business life.
Like it or not, management buzzwords like TCO form part of the decision what to buy. Say you have item 'x'. It costs 100 bucks to buy and 50 bucks to run reliably over 3 years. Item 'y' costs 50 bucks and costs 75 to run reliably over 3 years. Item 'x' is way superior to 'y', more reliable, prettier, whatever, but 'x' gets the job done, and your budget is 125 bucks? What do you think company average will buy? That's right, they'll buy 'x' because your CEO plays golf with the CEO of the company that produces 'x', but you get my point.
Admittedly, the poor techs are left holding the bag. Admittedly, the amount of grief, headaches and overtime and other unquantifiable factors (at least not on some PWC consultant's powerpoint presentation) will not be considered. But unless you have pretty good management (rare, although I have been fortunate in that regard) money talks, overworked sysadmin walks.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Isn't law great. A overly-broad, poorly thought out law get to cover something completely different. It could be a techie Monty Pyton sketch. I especially liked the non-persistence in RAM. Does that mean I have to erase each word in memory before storing the next one? It's a cool idea. Every computer in the world needs only 1 word of memory. The judge is a genius. I can only hope that most of the media companies who supported and pushed for DMCA use StorageTek kit.