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 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.'
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.
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.
I only do this because none of you will RTFA
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
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
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.