Slashdot Mirror
Universal Garage Door Opener OK under DMCA
Dave Walker writes "According to the EFF's Deep Links page, the Federal Circuit yesterday affirmed that the DMCA does not 'divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public.' The ruling goes on to state 'Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software. What the law authorizes, Chamberlain cannot revoke.'
EFF's archives of the case can be found here.
Another small victory for the good guys. I think I need a new garage door opener anyhow."
Not the same thing. We're talking about embedded software. Think more along the lines of universal remote controllers (wait, that's what this is about...). Making a copy of a Nintendo game isn't using that copy, it's using another copy (pedantic semantics, but hey that's law), although I can see where this ruling could be used as precedent. What most people fail to understand is that the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car. What they DO care about is you copying that CD and distributing it wholesale to anyone and everyone.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I'd question the use of "small" here. To me, this looks like the whole DMCA house of cards collapsing.
How long will it be before the Courts recognise a CSS-protected DVD as nothing more than a computer program we run to produce the video?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
No. You are entitled to use the software, not distribute it at will. You may argue that distribution is use, but try telling that to the GPL defenders around here.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car
Nor do they give a fuck about my legal right to do so. One which the have, on occasion, infringed upon. One which they, I suspect, would happily get permanently revoked if given the choice.
Reading through the courts document, it appears that Skylink does not circumvent anything. Chamberlain built a GDO (Garage Door Opener) system that also has a 'feature' to help prevent someone from 'stealing' the code to open the door. However, the system also has a 'feature' that allows the system to be reset. The Skylink transmitter (Model 39) takes avantage of the second of these 'features'. Using the Skylink transmitter with the Chamberlain GDO allows the door to be controlled, but you lose the first feature.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Breaking encryption schemes is entirely different from utilizing the decryption software in your computer/DVD player. This is about usage. Nothing more.
DeCSS doesn't break anything anymore than a third party garage door remote 'breaks' the garage door opener. It uses the existing code. The only difference is a matter of degree. CSS goes a little further in obscuring its interface than a garage door opener does. If "Consumers who purchase a product containing a copy of embedded software have the inherent legal right to use that copy of the software" then why can't I use the software on my DVD player to play my DVD?