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."

Comments

I agree, but...

[TubeSteak]

To circumvent the GetKey, defendants have used two methods. Until March 2003,
defendants used their Library Event Manager (" LEM") device, a computer they attached to the LAN wires that connect to plaintiff's Control and Management Units. A program called "reverse.exe" allowed defendants to defeat the security of the GetKey, albeit through the

sometimes very lengthy process of testing different password combinations until the code was cracked. They would then use the GetKey to set a maintenance level above 0, usually 9, and the system proceeded as designed.

And Part 2

After March 2003, defendants used "ELEM," software and a specially designed computer that worked similarly to the LEM, except that it did not use the reverse.exe program. Instead, defendant's ELEM incorporated a forged file identical to one that in the normal course of events would be created by the Control Unit and that tricks the Control Unit to reset the maintenance level at 6, at which level the trickery is not detectable by plaintiff

So basically... The company bought a big piece of hardware, licensed some software & has absolutely no rights to the Maintainence CodeMy first thought is "bummer" , but this is a little more complicated that we think. These STORAGETEK people might win for a variety of reasons.. but does that serve the public interest? There's no way anyone can say that copyright controls and/or trade secret controls weren't circumvented.

I only do this because none of you will RTFA

Re:Actually very related .....

[windex]

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.

[bani]

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.

A few points from a StorageTek user

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Exactly

[Takuryu]

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.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ulysses S. Grant: "The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it."

How I feel this should be challenged, but IANAL

[einhverfr]

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.