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 ....
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!
Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing a monopoly status is.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
One thing to also note, is that the circumvention is only for protections that protect rights the copyright holder has. One such example is copying. Access is NOT a right the copyright holder have exclusivnessly. Hence protection systems for access, like region coding or many of the protections on music CDs (that prvenst access on some devices but not really copying) are NOT protected from circumvention, youcan circumvent them all you want.
In the swedish implementation (or the draft that was arround some time ago, have not seen the final propsal), this was specifically mentioned and discussed, and also cases were some protection was both copyright related (copying) and non copyright related (like access). It was deemed that circumvention in those cases was STILL ok as it would otherwise put to much power into the hands of copuright owenr. They have the option to put in measures that relate to copyright (and have protection) or measures that that relate to other things as well (and not get protection). A quite interesting reasoning in my opinion.
"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..."
...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.
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?
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 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"
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.
....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.
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.
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"
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.
There's a lot of precedent against you already with cars. You may own the car, but you can't legally remove the catalytic converter, or change intake and exhaust engine settings for example, nor may a serviceman, unless it follows the law. People do it, but it's not legal. Go to any muffler shop, most of them have signs saying they can only replace the CC, they may not remove it and replace it with a normal straight pipe and allow you to drive away. You can own your diesel car or truck, it will run on regular fuel oil, but it's illegal for you to run it on anything except approved taxes paid on it road diesel, on the public roads anyway. And even if you ran it off road with the cheaper diesel, then go back on on road, and use the approved diesel-they can determine you put the illegal fuel in chemically sometime in the past, so therefore you still broke the law *technically*. It's happened to people, and they lose in court.
No, the bottom line is you really don't completely own your property,that's LONG gone now in our legal system, the government can and does put any restrictions on it, how you use it, where you use it, etc, basically anything they can dream up, that they feel like putting on it, and they can make it a law to follow. They can tax you for owning it too, for any reason, and take it away from you or further restrict you if you fail to pay their fee for the privelege of thinkiing you own something. Happens all the time.. You pay a homeownership tax, a car registration tax,that keeps reocurring, there are thousands of various "your property" codes and regulations out there that restrict what you can and cannot do with your property, etc. Lots of back legal precedent that the bottom line is-it's not your property, it's theirs. You are allowed a government *limited use* and *partial* ownership, which can be changed on any whim they determine. The old check and balance was supposed to be voting and the court system, but with legalised bribery and the hijacking and almost complete monopolization of government by two private for-profit in the technical sense organizations called the major "political parties",who collectively run the nation as a closed shop semi-cooperating criminal cartel, those checks and balances are long gone.
They give/allow people the illusion of "owning" property, but if you really owned it, you could do with it what you wanted to do with it, and that just isn't the case.
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
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.