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."
I've been surprised it has not happened already.
More than a few boxes I have tried to service have been so convoluted to take apart that the only explaination is that they do not want people servicing thier own box or adding hardware.
One of the reasons that, if I am to advise on any canned hardware package, I always recommend more on the server class. Most places assume that server stuff will be user serviced, though that is becomming less common also. If you are going to go the expensive route, might as well go all the way.
I also understand companies such as Dell wanting to keep customers out of thier boxes. I would hate to see thier costs associated with thier tech support dealing with people opening up thier boxes. But then again they shouldn't offer that service if they can not deliver or afford it.
I always build my own systems at home, if for no other reason that ease of service in opening up the case and adding/repairing hardware. At work I look for boxes that I can specify very specific equipment or get hardware I know I can easily work on.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
I only do this because none of you will RTFA
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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 A Libertarian President would not enforce the DMCA, and would work on getting it repealed.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
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.
"Consumer-Class" Dell cases are actually easy to take apart so tech support can walk people thru certain things over the phone. I.E. Reseating or replacing RAM, taking the CMOS battery out to reset the BIOS if the PC is jumperless, and so on.
I'm not a Dell phone monkey but my sig. other is.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Actually, that's a requirement for many vehicle warranties, and has been for quite some time.
This has been explicitly illegal in the United States, and has been for quite some time.
KFG
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...
Since nobody has torx screwdrivers, I bet nobody knows what a torx screw is either.
Apparently those are what i call 'star head' screws: Site with a few pics of torx screws, thanks to google
A real pro would use those screws that have two ramps on the head, so you can tighten them easy, but if you try to loosen them the bit just slides up the ramp in circles.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
This is a response to both the replies I have gotten so far.
I mostly agree - with tech support they are not hard to take apart. As long as you know which screw to remove and where to pull/push they are easy.
Now, pop one open without thier tech support. It doesn't work the way one would expect. It requires a good deal of looking at how all the parts fit together. It's not impossible, nor really that hard. but for someone that has never touched hardware it is a VERY daunting task most likely not undertaken. I'm willing to push and pull where I know it can take it.
Contrast this to IBM's server class machines. Almost nothing requires a screw and everything is labeled within the case on how to remove it (or, at least this is the case with the ones we bought). The only Dell server rack we own is the same way.
Where I used to work we got new undergrad students yearly. You could easily guage how easy hardware was to maintain. With the consumer grade stuff they really needed someone to walk them through it. With our server grade stuff you could leave all but the most hardware inept student alone and they figured it out.
This has lead me to believe, for quite some time, that Dell does not want average consumers to dork with thier hardware. And again, I can't say as I blame them. I probably should have been more clear (as, well, I wasn't at all clear I guess) that under circumstances that they want you to, they are willing to have a user dork with thier hardware. Otherwise off limits.
And at least one case where a customer obviously knew nothing about computers (my uncle) they didn't proscribe touching the case. Whereas when I called they did. I suspect, but can not prove, that you level of competance is guaged in the initial call. Though that very well could have been a fluke.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
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. ;)
"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.
Owning a BMW product, I dont have any idea what the fuck you're talking about. I can do everything from replace the ECU to removing the engine without any kind of special 'key'.
If someone told you they had to have a special 'key' to work on the car, they are on crack. In the US, there are laws preventing them from doing things like that. In the 80's it was even more restrictive, as the US was forcing import car makers to jump all kinds of hoops to insure that when people bought an import car that US service centers could repair the cars, since clearly, the import auto makers were all doomed. Also, it was a feebile attempt to steer more cash to domestic dealers.
Love your car-geek regional FUD hating cohort,
windex
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.
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.
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.
Forget cars for the moment - printer manufacturers are doing this *now* - there are chips in most inkjets carts today that are doing just this - preventing us from using generic carts, and preventing refilling. The generic cart makers are sitting ducks for DMCA.
You can duplicate the effect of the reset tool on most earlier model BMW's (the ones with the 1.5" round connector in the engine bay) with a paperclip. On the late model cars, it's done with the OBD-II connector, but the commands to do it are not exactly kept secret. Still, the car won't behave any differently if you just change the oil and don't reset the lights.
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.
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