Slashdot Mirror


DMCA Limited by Sixth Circuit Appeals Court

katharsis83 writes "Ars Technica and others are reporting that the Sixth Circuit Court has ruled against Lexmark in their lawsuit against a generic ink manufacturer. Here is a link to the ruling (EFF Website)."

379 comments

  1. How fast can one say... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Informative

    DUPE?????

    1. Re:How fast can one say... by ravenspear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Timothy the dupe king reigns again.

    2. Re:How fast can one say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, another same-day dupe. One can only wonder whether Timothy ever reads this site himself...

    3. Re:How fast can one say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I think your sig is a little confused. You see, Mayor McCheese IS the mayor of McDonald land. This has nothing to do with "having it your way" which is the Burger King slogan. Unfotunately the whole idea is ass backwards, you can "have it your way" at Burger King becuase its a Monarchy run by guess who? Yep, the Burger King, and you can't vote him out even if you want. I for one, cast my vote for Grimace, and I would make the Hamburgler cheif of police, seeing as he has so much experiance in the crime field.

  2. Thats good by Orgazmus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atleast someone is using their head :)

    I really dont know why a printer manufacturer should have exclusive rights on producing ink that work with their printers.
    That is like giving sony exclusive rights on the frequencies on their remote controls

    --
    The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    1. Re:Thats good by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I really dont know why a printer manufacturer should have exclusive rights on producing ink
      They shouldn't, but printer manufacturers want to "give us the razor and sell us the blades". You can buy a cheap ink-jet printer and spend MORE on the first set of replacement inks then the original printer. It makes the printer a throw away printer if you don't want to spend the money on the ink. The only problem is that most new ink-jets come with a "preview" cartridge that has a very small amount of ink. The printer manufacturers want you to go out in a month tops and pay more for the ink then for the printer.

      I am actually very shocked by this ruling. It looks like we Americans still have at least ONE branch of governemt that is working "For The People". The rest have all sold out to big business.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    2. Re:Thats good by 1ucius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I print about 1-2 pages per week. The "give us the razor and sell us the blades" business model is *great* for people like me.

    3. Re:Thats good by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except for the fact that the ink dries out in the tanks faster than I can use it up.

      Cheap used laser printer for me, thanks.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Thats good by arose · · Score: 1

      Laser all the way. Inkjets are useful when you NEED to print in color, often. Otherwise a laser printer will just keep going -- a cartrige lasts a long time when you print twice a week.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:Thats good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atleast someone is using their head :)

      Yeah, it seems the USA might not be a nation of morons after all, although we won't know for sure until the votes are counted and Bush is out of office.

      The downside is that it makes the DMCA look more reasonable, and thus probably more durable.

    6. Re:Thats good by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Actually they don't. There is plenty of anti-trust case law to back up SCC as well. If they lost this case, they could have filed any number of other suits based on the anti-tying provisions of the Sherman anti-trust act. (Several states have similar laws.)

      Liability for tying under 1 exists where (1) two separate "products" are involved; (2) the defendant affords its customers no choice but to take the tied product in order to obtain the tying product; (3) the arrangement affects a substantial volume of interstate commerce; and (4) the defendant has "market power" in the tying product market.

      Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 12-18.

      In this case, a proprietary locking chip that was sanctioned by DMCA would constitute market power.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  3. Great news. by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    It's about time the "give them the razors, sell them the blades" approach the printer companies have taken gets a kick in the shorts. They'll still make zillions from selling cartridges but at least one may have the option of refilling or buying 3rd party cartridges.

    Think about it: why do some printer cartridges cost more than a cheap DVD player?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Great news. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind if that was what they were doing... printers are still quite expensive, though.

      When they start giving printers away free with your first cartridge, then I'm sure few will complain.

    2. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They'll just shift the cost back to the printers if third-party sales of refills interfere with sales figures.

    3. Re:Great news. by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      nevermind the DVD player, why do some ink cartridges cost more than the printer you're buying them for? I've seen that every once in a while, it's cheaper to just buy the printer over and over and over again than it is to buy new cartridges for it.

    4. Re:Great news. by avalys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they tricked you on that too. The included cartridges in most printers are only half-full.

      So, unless the printers cost half as much as a new cartridge, you're still wasting money because you're buying printers twice as often as you would cartridges.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    5. Re:Great news. by theNetImp · · Score: 2, Funny

      a friend of mine does this 3-4 times a year. Buys a printer, 3 months down the road finishes the ink or it dries out. He then goes out and buys the next model up because it's now cheapter than buying 2 cartridges. It's crazy...

    6. Re:Great news. by mog007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the article "We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies"

      It actully gave me chills. Is the political system of the United States in such a state to be repaired back to the intentions set forth in the Constitution?

    7. Re:Great news. by Trejkaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's where the cost belongs, afterall, if it's covering the cost of a printer. How expensive can ink really be?

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    8. Re:Great news. by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I spent $125cdn on an Epson Style Photo R200.

      2 months later spent $112cdn on new ink.

    9. Re:Great news. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You can get an Epson C84/C86 for less than 89.00 before any rebates. This printer prints color rather well and prints black text at about 16-22 ppm.

      The 12.50 per color carts don't hurt either.

    10. Re:Great news. by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Informative
      And lexmark is by far the worst abuser of this business model. Let me tell you a story:

      I went to my friends house one day and he had a *STACK* of lexmark printers new in the box. I said, "what the hell could you possibly do with 5 printers?" he replies, "I got them on sale for 19.99 each. Thats half the price of ink." He just chucked the printers in the trash after he used the ink they came with.

      Second story, I was at a computer store in southern california here -- and they had lexmark printers for 9.99! No ink! Ink costs, 32$ per cartridge (you need a color and a black and white). Holy crap :)

      I got sick of the ink game. I bought a HP Laserjet 4m+ (the last of the *REALLY* beefy HP printers) for 75$ used. Ive had it for an entire year and haven't used up the toner cartridge it came with.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    11. Re:Great news. by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Is the political system of the United States in such a state to be repaired back to the intentions set forth in the Constitution?
      Sadly, no. It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago. The Judicial branch is all "We" have left. When Judicial branch goes south, it is time to get our rifles and charge the White House.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    12. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Forget about the cost of the ink as such. Why do some printer manufacturers insist on designing printers where you have a black cartridge, and a colour cartridge? None of this four separate "black, cyan, magenta, yellow" cartridge nonsense -- you buy one black cartridge, and one cartridge containing the cyan, magenta, and yellow inks bundled together.

      So when you run low on yellow, you have to buy a new set of cyan and magenta ink as well, and turf the unused cyan and magenta. For crying out loud. Canon can do it -- why can't other companies?

    13. Re:Great news. by LS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why? I work for the HP Inkjet division and I'll tell you why HP cartridges are expensive - because they lose money on the printers, the rest of the company is in the red, the devices are becoming a commodity, the competition is driving margins down, and the upper management is greedy, so they compensate by charging outrageous prices for the cartridges and outsourcing work to Beijing, Singapore, and Bangalore.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    14. Re:Great news. by VivianC · · Score: 1

      Decent printers are expensive. Cheapo Lexmarks are not decent printers.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    15. Re:Great news. by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Funny
      So when you run low on yellow, you have to buy a new set of cyan and magenta ink as well

      Yea, I always run out of flesh tones first >oops

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    16. Re:Great news. by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      And the fact that for most of their printers (well the C82 that I have) you can get very good 3rd party ink for $5 a cartridge, if you don't mind waiting a month for it to arrive, and $7 per color and $15 a black if you want it in 4 days.

      Not to mention that if by any chance this ink clogs up the printer, epson will replace it under warrenty (I mention this as many people claim this is a big problem with 3rd party inks. It has happened to me, about 1/2 the time - but after I get the fixed printer I don't have problems anymore, and haven't seen any decrease in print quality)

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    17. Re:Great news. by rainman_bc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Elect GW Bush for another term, and expect DMCA and Patriot act engrained in the constitution by an act of Congress.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    18. Re:Great news. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      a friend of mine does this 3-4 times a year. Buys a printer, 3 months down the road finishes the ink or it dries out. He then goes out and buys the next model up because it's now cheapter than buying 2 cartridges. It's crazy...


      Then what happens to the old printers?!?

    19. Re:Great news. by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      If you have a comfy desk chair and a box of Kleenex then you can save a bundle on ink. Oh yeah, get a wastebasket too.

    20. Re:Great news. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      Yea, I always run out of flesh tones first

      Just what the hell are you printing cowboy?!

    21. Re:Great news. by Mignon · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ink costs, 32$ per cartridge (you need a color and a black and white).

      You got ripped off, buddy. My inket came with a lifetime supply of white ink.

    22. Re:Great news. by AstroDrabb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am a Libertarian brother : ) No Dubya for me, though sadly we may be stuck with him for another 4 years : (

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    23. Re:Great news. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Insightful


      The judicial branch is definitely not immune to making judgements based on political alignment.

      It's REALLY nice to see Lexmark get their ass kicked. I wrote them a letter way back when this issue was first reported and said I'd throw out my printer and advise against buying one to everyone I know if they didn't back off the DMCA claim. I did just that (and have been advising against them ever since). That's quite a few less bucks in their pocket.

    24. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cartridges that come with Lexmark printers are only a third full. So, it really isn't cheaper to buy the printers.

    25. Re:Great news. by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right on - although my msg wasn't addressed to you in particular... More of a general warning - call if fear mongering if you will :)

      (I'm in Canada btw - Dubya hasn't done nothing but piss Canadians off too.)

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    26. Re:Great news. by packeteer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If by "we" you mean activist judges. Stinkin activist judges are always trying to get their agenda across despite the "other" branches attempts to legislate our freedom away.

      Does anyone believe this crap out of GW about activist judges? Isn't that the idea behind our govt. that we learned in 8th grade? Each brances has certain checks and balances given them partial control over the other. Each branch is suposed to keep the others in line. An example being judges are be design "activists". They are suposed to uphold only the laws which are constitutional and uphold the values of those those that elected them or by proxy the values of the elected official that appointed them.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    27. Re:Great news. by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could get a small tax writeoff... donate to your favorite charity (or Goodwill or Salvation Army).

      They'll resell them, and you get a deduction.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    28. Re:Great news. by bnenning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Elect GW Bush for another term, and expect DMCA and Patriot act engrained in the constitution by an act of Congress.

      Um, Congress can't amend the Constitution. And I see no reason to expect the party of Hollywood to suddenly develop an interest in fair use rights. After all, it was Clinton who signed the DMCA.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    29. Re:Great news. by 1ucius · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think Kerry will go against the wishes of his Hollywood overlords?

    30. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Elect GW Bush for another term

      ... or let the courts appoint him like last time ...

    31. Re:Great news. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Sadly, no. It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago."

      It won't be long before the judicial branch is bought also. Already Judges are being brought along junkets for "educational purposes" where conservative think tanks give them an all expense paid vacations and educate them on things like the sanctity of intellectual property or some nonsense. Also every politician running has made it a point that they will probably nominate judges sometime in their term so better vote for the guy who will pick judges that will rule your way.

      Finally I don't think I need to say anything about the supreme court do I?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    32. Re:Great news. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Bush lobying Congress to amend the consitution to include the definition of marriage?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    33. Re:Great news. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I got sick of the ink game. I bought a HP Laserjet 4m+ (the last of the *REALLY* beefy HP printers) for 75$ used. "

      Samsung has a small laser printer that's about the size of your typical inkjet that can be had for less than $100 or so. I got mine at a Sam's Club for ~$85.

    34. Re:Great news. by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      In the case of razors/blades, the handle (which is essentially given away) really isn't all that expensive to begin with -- It wouldn't surprise me if the razor+blades sale is at the break-even point for the company.

      In the case of printers, manufacturers sell printers substantially under cost, effectively losing money on every sale. That's a poorly thought out business model, but unfortunately, with disposable products becoming the norm, an effective one, at least short term.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    35. Re:Great news. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      And this is better than the totally bulletproof HP LJ4 how exactly?

      I know I'll be able to get replacement parts for an LJ4 until shortly after the sun cools. (not to mention cool secondhand goodies like extra paper trays or even a duplexing unit!) The same is not true for the Samsung.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    36. Re:Great news. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I like to take them out into a field and beat them to pieces with a bat.

      Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    37. Re:Great news. by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      canon can do it, doesnt mean its designed correctly

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    38. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to my friends house one day and he had a *STACK* of lexmark printers new in the box. I said, "what the hell could you possibly do with 5 printers?" he replies, "I got them on sale for 19.99 each. Thats half the price of ink." He just chucked the printers in the trash after he used the ink they came with.

      Well that is very sad for the environment.

      Anyway, I still have a bit of a problem with this ruling. Yes, I agree with most posts that Lexmark should not have added a guard to break recycled or alternative toner cartridges. But I do not agree SCC should have the right to do a byte copy of the Lexmark code. SCC should be forced to license that code, or Lexmark should be forced to remove/disable that guard.

      If SCC had cracked the SHA1 code using true reverse engineering techniques, I would be completely fine with this ruling. The remote garage opener ruling was a no brainer.

      Good for the consumer and the environment, but still feels wrong.

    39. Re:Great news. by anagama · · Score: 1

      Knucklehead. The next president will put at least two judges in the Supreme Court. Push through some "yes-man" and when Lexmark appeals to the SC, the current ruling will be overruled.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    40. Re:Great news. by Technician · · Score: 1

      Why? I work for the HP Inkjet division and I'll tell you why HP cartridges are expensive - because they lose money on the printers, the rest of the company is in the red, the devices are becoming a commodity, the competition is driving margins down, and the upper management is greedy, so they compensate by charging outrageous prices for the cartridges


      In a nutshell that's why I use the older printers, not the new one. The old cartridge is the 23 which holds 30 mL of ink. The new printer uses the 78 cart. It has 2 flavors. High yeild and economy. they have 38mL and 19mL. I get the 30 mL carts in a twin pack for about $45. I get the 38 mL cart for about $52. The economy cart is about $35. It's hardly economical. The new printer uses chipped cartridges to discourage refills. The old printer does not.

      I just visited the HP website to check the page yeild claims. It used to be listed. Now I can't find it. The old cartridge had a claim of about 500 pages at 15% coverage. The new one (not the economy one) claimed a higher page count but at only 5% page coverage. I am wondering if they thought we wouldn't notice the apple/orange comparison. When they did have the specifications, the old cartridge was listed at about 500 pages at 15% coverage and the new high yeild was about 900 pages at 5% page coverage. Wow. More pages.... If you print with 1/3rd the ink on a page.

      Getting data is getting harder to find. HP has repackaged the new cartriges into a twin pack.

      The old cartrige has some information.

      Clip;
      Save $15.99 over purchasing two single cartridges!

      The HP No. 23 regular color inkjet print cartridge is the right choice for frequent printer users who expect clear, sharp photo-quality results at a competitive cost per page.

      Features

      Produce sharp text and bright, vivid graphics
      Specially designed to work with HP inkjet specialty papers and transparency films or plain papers, delivering superior, photo-quality printouts

      Specifications
      IInk volume: 60 ml (30 ml per cartridge)


      The new cartrige which is now sold in a twin pack is much less informative.
      They don't list if it's the economy cartrige of 19 mL or the high capacity one of 38 mL. They also no longer make any page yeild claims. Grrr...

      Clipped from the www.shopping.HP.com site regarding the 78 twinpack.

      Double the ink, drop the price.

      Save $6.99 over the cost of two cartridges sold individually
      Get photo-quality images and brilliant color
      Depend on HP genuine, photo-quality ink for long-lasting results
      Get outstanding photo quality -- up 2400 x 1200 dpi



      The price at 53.99 indicates this is the economy 19 mL cartridge, not the high capacity 38 mL cartridge that retails localy for $51.99 each.

      Due to the price of supplies, I take my digital photos to Costco for printing. The 4X6 prints are 0.19 each and I don't have to eat the cost of printing errors such as running out of a color mid-print or a PC BSOD mid-print.

      That leaves my color printing to just a few web pages and such. That hardly justifies buying the best (most expensive) high resolution photo printer inks. Most of my other stuff gets done on a HP laserjet III. I buy it a cartridge about once every 2-3 years. (I finaly killed the cart that came in it, so I'm on my first replacement) I bought the laserprinter used for less than one color cartrige for the new printer.

      Dell sells a cheap all in one multi-function printer. My wife got one with her new PC. The cartriges are about 1/4 the size of the HP ones. Nowhere in the Dell site are there any claims to page yeild or ink volume. Information is missing completely except the price. It's about the same price as the economy HP cartriges. Since the HP economy cartriges are the half full ones, I guess you get about half that ink for the same price. Needless to say, I put the HP printers on the lan. Nobody uses the Dell printer except a

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    41. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not obvious to you already then you don't belong here =).

    42. Re:Great news. by conradp · · Score: 1

      Not quite, just to answer your specific question Bush has said he supported such a constitutional amendment but he has done no lobbying and knows that it will never pass. It's just like the "anti flag burning" constitutional amendment that was proposed several years back, nothing but patriotism and pandering and posturing to shore up his base.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    43. Re:Great news. by elandal · · Score: 1

      What do you mean with HPLJ4m+ having been "the last of the *REALLY* beefy HP printers"?
      I've been very happy with my HPLJ4050TN, which is the next generation of LJ4-series afaik..

      No, I don't have any intention of buying an inkjet printer of any kind, brand or model. I'm happy with b&w.

    44. Re:Great news. by conradp · · Score: 1

      I'm not a huge GW fan but I certainly agree with him about the problems of activist judges. Read the constitution and you'll see a very long and detailed section about the congress, a shorter section about the president, and then this tiny section about the supreme court. These were never intended to be three equal branches of government with overlapping roles despite whatever one's 8th-grade social studies teacher might have said. In fact the major "checks and balances" were all accomplished simply by having two separate houses within the legislative branch.

      The constitution says that congress legislates, the president executes and implements the laws passed by congress, and the courts settle disputes about who has or hasn't violated the law. But these days we've totally screwed all that up. Congress has in many cases ceded its legislative authority to the president by allowing executive agencies to issue regulations that have the same force as law. Courts strike down laws or even virtually write their own laws just because they disagree with the laws that congress and the president passed, not because the law violates the consitution. They've invented their own utterly complex system of extra-constitutional precedents and implicit "weighing of interests" guidelines that are buried in case law and have no provisions for being repealed or amended. Congress and the president ignore their oaths of office to uphold and defend the constitution by passing laws that they know to be unconstitutional just by figuring, well, they'll let the courts decide if its ok or not.

      So our three branches of government are hopelessly out of whack, the courts have grabbed for themselves way too much power and congress has let its power be whittled away.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    45. Re:Great news. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Nevermind an 8th grade social studies class, how about a Law school education?

      American judges are modeled after their British ancestors where the body of law was a combination of statute and judicial interpretation. This interpretation is a key element of the law as it originally came to us from our progentitors (The English).

      This is why nearly 1000 year old English legal precedents are still taught in US Law schools.

      To claim that American judges aren't meant to be "activists" or "check other branches of government" is absurd, simplistic and completely ignores our own social context.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    46. Re:Great news. by arose · · Score: 1

      Copyright is a monopoly. Is everything Lexmark creates in public domain from now on? :-)

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    47. Re:Great news. by arose · · Score: 1

      His girlfriend.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    48. Re:Great news. by arose · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just print on black paper and all your ink wories are history!

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    49. Re:Great news. by bani · · Score: 1

      theyre in the red because they stupidly sunk so much time+money into the black hole known as "itanium", stubbornly refusing to admit their mistake until it was too late. now everyone else is eating HP for lunch.

      don't ever sell your product at a loss where the consumables retail for more than your product itself does. it's a stupid business model and will come back to bite you in the ass later.

    50. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fuck HP and their ass-sucking business model. They should go down the tubes in a swirl of shit for forsaking their previous ethics as espoused by the founders. Piss on Carly.

    51. Re:Great news. by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I do not agree SCC should have the right to do a byte copy of the Lexmark code.

      The court merely ruled that by abusing the purpose of copyright, Lexmark lost their right to copyright protection. It was Lexmark's foul, and they've already made tons of profit by slowing down the tide of ink competition through legal fear.

      Who was harmed by this ruling? Lexmark lost nothing (well, except for an illegal monopoly, but they'd have lost that with your solution as well).

      Basically, the court said that if your software checks for a particular series of bytes in a particular location before interoperating with something, then somebody can copy those bytes. If Lexmark wants to execute those bytes as code, that is on them.

      In the end, both the court's and your rememdies seem to be the same. However, your's requires lexmark consumers to ship in their printers for firmware replacement, and basically puts SCC out of business since most consumers won't bother to do that. In other words, it rewards the abuser.

      The court has it right - the purpose of copyright is to allow somebody to profit from an original work, not to perpetuate monopolies on hardware. If Lexmark wanted to take steps to prevent somebody from stealing their firmware code and sue somebody under the DMCA for doing so, they'd be acting within the purpose of the law. On the other hand, SCC didn't care about the firmware, they only copied it because Lexmark forced them to do so in order to allow for interoperability.

    52. Re:Great news. by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Actually, when it comes to Justices, "conservative" takes a much different meaning. It means that they are *less* likely to overturn a decision (like Roe vs. Wade) and more likely to throw out a new law as unconstitutional.

    53. Re:Great news. by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      If you don't need to print in color a laser printer is a good choice. I've only replaced the toner cartridge in my HP 2100TN once, the original cartridge lasted almost 3 years and I replaced it with the extended life cartridge about a year ago.

      HP is my laser printer of choice, they seem to last a long time and I think that their JetDirect cards are better supported than other brands of ethernet interface. Although there are several posts here that seem to indicate that HP's are not what they used to be, the latest HP printer that I've worked with is a 4050TN and that seems to still be made fairly well. Of course I've still got an Epson LQ-1050 that I still use once in a while for wide caridge text printing, talk about a well made product and a company that's not what it used to be.... ah the good old days

    54. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    55. Re:Great news. by bnenning · · Score: 1

      The next president will put at least two judges in the Supreme Court. Push through some "yes-man" and when Lexmark appeals to the SC, the current ruling will be overruled.

      And again, what makes you think that Kerry-appointed justices will be an improvement? He's said nothing about digital rights (other than his meaningless "yeah, I'll look into it" comment on the DMCA a few days ago), and his record on civil liberties in general is lousy, as noted in my sig. (Fun fact: Kerry supported the Clipper Chip, in opposition to both John Ashcroft and the ACLU).

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    56. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dells printers are rebranded lexmarks. Once Dell's printers become popular, expect the cartridge prices to increase.

    57. Re:Great news. by Technician · · Score: 1

      Once Dell's printers become popular, expect the cartridge prices to increase.


      With very low yeild, high prices, no local retail, etc., they won't become popular. Who wants a printer you can't run out to WalMart and get ink for a deadline?

      Dells printers are rebranded lexmarks.

      This makes it a low volume specialty ink printer. This results in an even higher supplies cost. This is another reason they will be replaced at the first chance. I don't see them becomming popular. There is simply too much competition for them to make a sizable market dent. In a nutshell, Dell has already strained the profit margin.

      My conclusion is either they have enough mark-up to be slightly profitable on the small volume of custom Dell cartridges, or they die and become orphaned by dell for not enough ink volume to support manufacturing.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    58. Re:Great news. by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      Ive had it for an entire year and haven't used up the toner cartridge it came with.


      I got fed up with ink jet printers about for years ago. I was going through them like candy. I had an HP that was back to the shop a few times. Some of them mangled paper. Some produced heavy banding. The HP ate ink jet cartridges. It would clog the nozzles and make them useless. So I chucked them all and bought a minolta color laser printer for $1000. It's been perfect. It's never jammed. I'm still on the original cartriges. And it works over the network. The latest version of this printer is now $600 I believe. After we moved recently, I found a canon lbp-430 that had been stored for years. This is the same engine as the HP 4L. I dusted it off and plugged it into my daughter's computer. Works great. Prints a little slow, but perfectly. I bought this printer 10 years ago! And it's still on it's original cartrige.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    59. Re:Great news. by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do me a favor and tell your boss this: Consumers are smart. How much do the printers cost you? Multiply that by your margin and sell them for that. How much does the ink cost you? Multiply by your margin and sell it for that. That will make your more printers expensive. But consumers are smart! - tell them, "We're not fucking with you like everyone else is - sure the printer's expensive, but the ink is cheap." People will buy it! It's no secret what the printer manufacturers are doing - everyone knows it's a racket, and everyone wants it to stop - you're just not fooling anybody. Be the first to sell stuff for what it's worth, and you will be rewarded.

    60. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't done nothing... that means he's done a lot except piss you Canucks off?
      Mayhaps you should learn english.

    61. Re:Great news. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've got a better idea: Not only can SCC make knock-off cartridges, but Lexmark has to turn over all profit from ink cartridge sales during the product's lifetime to SCC.

    62. Re:Great news. by The+Cornishman · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not just ground-up beetles, you know. An inkjet printer cartridge is actually an amazing piece of technology - fast and accurate dispensation of picolitre quantities of up to four different fluids with registration tolerances measured in small fractions of a millimeter. Those fluids had better not have any lumps or inconsistencies...

    63. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We blew it big time when we amended the Constitution to require the direct election of the Senators by the people.

      We are the United STATES of America. The Senate was purposely designed to be elected by the State's legislature to serve as a check and balance against the Federal government.

      We would not have all the unfunded mandates and blackmail by Congress if the Senators were going to have to go back home and vote to raise taxes to pay for those things.

    64. Re:Great news. by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      Samsung has a small laser printer that's about the size of your typical inkjet that can be had for less than $100 or so. I got mine at a Sam's Club for ~$85.
      That was a nice little laser. We used one at home for quite a while (it was an earlier model, I think a 1650)--until we upgraded to Mac OS X. Oops. The printer wouldn't work any more. And didn't work for two years. I don't know if they ever released working drivers, but the printer is no more and we have an HP 1300, which is also a swell little laser printer. Of course, it costs a bunch more.... but we've had it for two years and are still using the first cartridge.
    65. Re:Great news. by tsg · · Score: 1

      Copyright is a monopoly.

      Copyright is a (at least theoretically) limited monopoly.

      Is everything Lexmark creates in public domain from now on?

      Copyright doesn't apply to printers, which is kind of the point. It's why the DMCA plainly does not apply as they claimed it did.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
    66. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Canon i475D, and it is what I'd consider a decent printer. I've printed literally thousands of digital photos with it in addition to the odd page of text here and there. It was $75 from Fry's, and the models that don't have the integrated memory card reader (i455D I think) are about $50. The 3rd party "Print-Rite" brand ink cartridges I buy are about $5 for the black cartridge and $13 for the color cartridge. Its a lot cheaper than buying a $30 Lexmark and then having to pay that again or more for ink cartridges over and over again. Hell, even if someone gave me a Lexmark, I don't think it would be a good deal.

    67. Re:Great news. by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder why this "amazing technology" couldn't have been designed not to be in the part which needs replacing. ;-)

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    68. Re:Great news. by gidds · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that's a nice printer.

      But the thing about the HP LaserJets (<=4) is that they were built like tanks, and last effectively forever. I picked one up for free a few months ago (a company was chucking it out); it needed a new roller (ten quid), but otherwise it still works fine despite being the best part of a decade old. And I expect it to keep going for a similar time. I haven't even changed the toner cartridge yet, but when I do I have no worries about being able to find one.

      It's a big beast, and I'd prefer something smaller, but it works perfectly, first time, every time, even if I don't use it for a few weeks -- unlike my Epson inkjet, which usually needs ten minutes and umpteen cleaning cycles before most of the jets are clear...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    69. Re:Great news. by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      I did just that (and have been advising against them ever since). That's quite a few less bucks in their pocket.
      You not the only one who has done this : )

      I have told all my non-geek family/extended family members that Lexmark sucks and not to buy one. Everyone I told this to has purchased an HP or an Epson which are just as competitive on price and did not try to abuse the DMCA.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    70. Re:Great news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. Really fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, it's only two stories down in the YRO section.

    Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case

    1. Re:Really fast by irving47 · · Score: 1

      If it makes it to the main slashdot page only once, do you really have to count it as a duplicate?

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:Really fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes you do.

  5. Its about darn time! by acadiel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe this will make things such as region lockout on videogame consoles, cell phone unlocking services, etc, legal.

    Then again, if you start taking the analogy this far, then you get into a paradox with DVD region encoding.

    Thoughts?

    1. Re:Its about darn time! by dennbruce · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, i think it's a little early for that, but one can certainly hope! At least there are still people like the EFF willing to fight for our rights. IMHO this is what makes America a great country. Let's not give up the fight.

    2. Re:Its about darn time! by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      DVD region coding has already been ruled uncompetitive in a few regions of the world, so it should just fuck off. But most DVD players by now are multi-region anyway.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:Its about darn time! by capnjack41 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      God only knows why this DVD region locking can happen to begin with. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't (shouldn't) be illegal to circumvent. As Cory Doctorow (an EFF guy) says in a speech to Microsoft about DRM:

      But anticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest in your physical property to their favor. Region-coded DVDs are an example of this: there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them. I can buy a book and throw it in my bag and take it anywhere from Toronto to Timbuktu, and read it wherever I am: I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price.

      http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

    4. Re:Its about darn time! by j0e_average · · Score: 1

      Actually, the answer is in the ruling on pages 17 and 18. I've read it several times and am still a little fuzzy on the meaning, but the short version is that DVD encryption is covered, Lexmark is not.

    5. Re:Its about darn time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVD region encoding has already been ruled anti-competitive in Australia. It is perfectly legal to crack it, and to sell devices that crack it, under Australian law. This is why console mod-chips were legal until recently here.

      One Government body actually tried to ban region-locked DVD players, but only succeeded in gaining token "encouragement" for region-free players.

    6. Re:Its about darn time! by Roxton · · Score: 1

      Nice thought, but no cigar.

      The reason the DMCA didn't apply here is that, while the checksum chip permitted the printer engine program to run, it didn't permit *access* to the program. Therefore, there was no access being circumvented.

      With DVD region encoding, there actually is a system in place to prevent access to the DVD's content.

    7. Re:Its about darn time! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      "I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price."

      And therein lies the reasoning behind DVD region encoding.

      The scenario the MPAA and its friends are trying to avoid is one where the dealer in the UK, rather than dealing with the UK branch of the studio and selling their product, simply imports palletloads of product from the US and sells it at half the desired UK sales price.

      The fact that an individual person can't play a typical US DVD on a typical UK DVD player is a mere side effect of their business plan for distribution and price-setting. It's collateral damage.

      (All of this setting aside the NTSC/PAL conversion issues, of course)

    8. Re:Its about darn time! by Detritus · · Score: 1

      I used to know a professional photographer who bought some cameras while visiting Japan, mumble years ago. He said that he had to have the manufacturer's name/logo erased from the cameras, otherwise US Customs would have seized them because they violated the trademark of the authorized importer/distributor. I never figured out how a trademark could be used to maintain a regional monopoly. All of the cameras came from the same factory in Japan, but only one company was legally able to import them into the US.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  6. The only good DMCA . . . by wakejagr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is a struck down DMCA, but this is a start.

    --
    Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
  7. Copy protection removal tool for legal use by IgD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've purchased a lot of games like Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam. The problem is you have to put a CD in the drive to play. This really slows down the game and is inconvenient. I'm sure it also adds wear and tear to your CD/DVD drive. Removing the CD check for a legal use is common sense. I bought the game, I'm entitled to use it.

    I'm not interested in piracy. I think it costs more to pirate the game if you factor in time then it would just to buy it.

    1. Re:Copy protection removal tool for legal use by anethema · · Score: 1

      While I agree about the annoyance of having to use a CD..if you think pirating a game takes more than 5mins of work you're doing something wrong.

      Go to suprnova, pick a game, download and install.

      Its childs play.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  8. Don't break out the champaign yet by nz_mincemeat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least this ruling would deter (mis)application of the DMCA on objects that the consumers actually own.

    Still won't help with the current situation of entertainment media or software though.

    1. Re:Don't break out the champaign yet by corporatemutantninja · · Score: 3, Interesting
      While this is a tactical victory, it does mean that it will be harder to completely overturn the DMCA. We (or the EFF...give them money please) will no longer be able to use these sorts of flagrant abuse cases for grounds of rethinking the whole thing.

      Lenin was opposed to trade unions because he was afraid their successes would appease the workers enough that they would lose interest in full revolution. Similar case here, methinks.

      --
      Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
    2. Re:Don't break out the champaign yet by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      "While this is a tactical victory, it does mean that it will be harder to completely overturn the DMCA. We (or the EFF...give them money please) will no longer be able to use these sorts of flagrant abuse cases for grounds of rethinking the whole thing."

      If we can't overturn the DMCA because the DMCA has already been rendered useless, doesn't that mean we won anyway?

  9. Hurray! by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only the right decision, but one that quotes Lawrence Lessig. How cool is that?

    1. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a scale from 1 to Totally Awesome... it's Super Cool.

  10. Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This really looks promising to make modchips legal in the USA (wow):

    "Generally speaking, "lock-out" codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line. Manufacturers of interoperable devices such as computers and software, game consoles and video games, printers and toner cartridges, or automobiles and replacement parts may employ a security system to bar the use of unauthorized components. To "unlock" and permit operation of the primary device (i.e., the computer, the game console, the printer, the car), the component must contain either a certain code sequence or be able to respond appropriately to an authentication process. To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and sc's 'aire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright."
    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    1. Re:Can we say wow? by alienw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm, no. This ruling essentially says that the purpose of the lexmark protection is not to protect a copyrighted work, but to restrict access to a printer. The main purpose of a modchip, like it or not, is to pirate games. If you make a modchip that does not let you pirate games, but just lets you play homebrew ones, it might be legal -- but nobody would want it.

    2. Re:Can we say wow? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say the opposite is being said here.

      A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

      What this DOES say is that it is legal to reverse engineer the copy protection process in order to get a game YOU authored to run on a console. In other words the "signing" key used to sign games cannot be copyrighted, and it is not considered copyright infringement to use such a key to sign your own game with (ie: you don't need the console manufacturer's approval to release such a game).

    3. Re:Can we say wow? by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I think it'd be hard to prove that the main purpose is for pirating, considering the large number of people who hack their xboxes, etc. to use as media servers, etc.

      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
    4. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      The main purpose of a modchip, like it or not, is to pirate games.

      The main purpose of a handgun in the hands of a non-police officer, like it or not, is to kill police officers.

      If you make a modchip that does not let you pirate games, but just lets you play homebrew ones, it might be legal -- but nobody would want it.

      That's why they're the biggest news on the PS2 scene and why all the popular modchip makers have jumped onto the homebrew bandwagon, right? And that's why all legal XBOX modchips sold in the USA (yes, not *all* modchips are banned in the USA, just *most*) are preloaded with cromwell flash firmware, or just plain cromwell firmware, as well as a suite of popular homebrew utilites, right?

      Honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about. I make a living selling modchips legally (thank God for Canada) and there definately *is* a demand for modchips for homebrew software. There's also a larger demand for modchips for backups, and I'm happy to sell them for that purpose (thanks to our sane copyright laws). As far as a demand for pirated games, let's put it this way, I turn all customers to even mention warez away at the door, and my shop does $1/4 million+ sales per year. Seems to me there's plenty of demand for modchips for legal purposes. I would say I turn away about 1% of my customers for this reason. It's far less than I'd have to turn away if I were running a video rental store.

      I've never made a dollar from piracy and I intend to keep it that way. And so do all the other places selling modchips. In the entire history of Canada, only one modchip store has ever been "shut down" for piracy. Or at least that's the only one that made the news.

      Oddly enough, you'll find shops like mine MUCH more concerened with piracy than *any* other gaming store (some of which I happen to know are selling pirated games right now -- morons!), because unlike them, the corporations with big money send hired goons to my store to try to get us to sell them products for illegal purposes (this has happened to us, the hired goons that is, not the sale of illegal products) because the big money doesn't like the idea that their hardware might be used in a manner they didn't want it to be used in.

      Now, I'm busy modding another PS2 so it can play imports... TTYL!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    5. Re:Can we say wow? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      This ruling brings to mind the brouhaha over the NES lockout chip (remember the NES?), which prevented independant publishers from creating games for the system, unless they went through Nintendo and paid exorbitant licensing fees. At the time, the courts ruled in favor of Nintendo (which I found surprising, considering the anti-competitive implications). This seems like a very similar case. Could it be the courts of today are slightly more educated about technology?

    6. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

      Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

      - Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer, which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
      - Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel)
      - Cheating devices (ex: Game genie by Galoob)
      - Playing backups
      - Bypassing region protection

      These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

      1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
      2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
      3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
      4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

      As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

      Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

      That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

      This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing and embarassing people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum just because someone might stick it under a desk.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:Can we say wow? by multriha · · Score: 1

      The ruling considers the differences between this case and the NES lockout case. In the NES case, people were copying the program that output the necessary unlock code. The court ruled that the lockout defense was insufficient, because it was possible to write a different program to produce that same unlock code.

      In this case, the program itself was the unlock code (a checksum was done of it).

    8. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I screwed up the game genie link. It should go here.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    9. Re:Can we say wow? by damium · · Score: 1

      IIRC the case you are referring to was a case of trademark infringement not of copyright. In that case it was ruled that it WAS infringement of Nintendo's trademark for the game to run the initialization sequence on the NES that caused it to display the Nintendo logo.

    10. Re:Can we say wow? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Whatever. Everyone I know who has a modchip in his xbox or PS2 (that's quite a few people) got it for the purpose of pirating games. The other stuff is a nice side-effect, but hardly anyone buys modchips for running media servers. In any case, that is irrelevant, because modchips that can bypass copy protection obviously violate the DMCA.

    11. Re:Can we say wow? by alienw · · Score: 1

      And that's why all legal XBOX modchips sold in the USA (yes, not *all* modchips are banned in the USA, just *most*) are preloaded with cromwell flash firmware, or just plain cromwell firmware, as well as a suite of popular homebrew utilites, right?

      Well, I could see your point if it was difficult or impossible to reflash the cromwell rom with, say, xecuter2. It's not, and the process is usually described in the instructions that come with the modchip.

      Of course, if you call pirated games "backups", it makes it all legal, right? I don't think so. I can see why people would want to back up their games, but piracy is generally what this feature gets used for. There are PS2 modchips that only let you play imports, but you probably won't be able to sell very many of them.

      Anyway, I am not against modchips or piracy, I am just saying that they most likely violate the DMCA.

    12. Re:Can we say wow? by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 1

      Biggest news on PS2-scene.org in a bad way. The homebrew-only modchips were almost universally deplored from the moment of their announcement; though, granted, that may be partway due to the scummy tactics employed by the manufacturer (which I won't elaborate on here because it's not relevant).

      As for your shop, well... all I can say is, if you think those 'modchips for backups' are really being used for backups, well, you're living in a fantasy land. You may not be selling pirated game discs, but to say you've never made a dollar off of piracy is splitting hairs. (Though, with that exchange rate... kidding, kidding.)

      I won't deny that there are people who use modchips only for homebrew and the thrill of hacking, and never for warez. But they're a minority.

      --
      ~ Aero
    13. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      Well, I could see your point if it was difficult or impossible to reflash the cromwell rom with, say, xecuter2. It's not, and the process is usually described in the instructions that come with the modchip.

      Why should it be difficult to violate the law? I don't see anyone making automatic doors that force citizens to use the sidewalk and stay off the road until the "WALK" sign turns on, so they don't jaywalk. It's your responsibility as a citizen to know what the law is, and it's your business to follow said law.

      Of course, if you call pirated games "backups", it makes it all legal, right?

      No, that just makes you incorrect. Let me see if I can explain this with a venn diagram.

      See how the section "BAD" is bad and is what you're discussing. :-) And notice that the section "backups" isn't entirely in the section "illegal" or "piracy".

      In math:

      piracy n backups n illegal

      I just get tired of explaining that to people. Sorry if I took it out on you! However, the concept of a "legal backup" is well known and, at least in my country (Canada), is a right enshrined in our copyright law.

      A console modchip is no more likely to enable someone to pirate a game than this cartridge modchip is likely to make someone copy the copyrighted artwork on the lexmark original cartridge. It's all separate things.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    14. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      As for your shop, well... all I can say is, if you think those 'modchips for backups' are really being used for backups, well, you're living in a fantasy land. You may not be selling pirated game discs, but to say you've never made a dollar off of piracy is splitting hairs.

      I consider that the same way I consider that a hospital makes money because people die from diseases. A hospital does not cause people to die or get sick no more than my selling of a modchip causes someone to pirate a game. The fact that mostly sick people use a hospital's services doesn't make the hospital bad, and on the same note, even if people are lying to me and, in fact, are using modchips to "steal", then I do not consider myself at all responsible for that, because I would not encourage anyone to pirate, just as a hospital would not (well, should not) encourage people to get sick just to reap the benefits of another patient.

      You can say that's a rationalization if you like. Your point of view does have some valid arguments. However, as I mentioned, my store, unlike others, runs a far cleaner and much more copyright respecting operation than many others that don't offer the products I do. So, at least in my mind, I consider myself "clean" of encouraging illegal activity.

      The homebrew-only modchips were almost universally deplored from the moment of their announcement;

      Yes, unfortunately a *LOT* of people there aren't into respecting copyright. It really sucks. I really think the XBOX-scene (pun intended) has benefited from all the hardcore crackdowns by microsoft on illegal copies of their BIOS and other software. Nobody there would ever complain that a modchip only comtained legal software that can only be used for legal purposes. Well, one would hope so, anyways.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    15. Re:Can we say wow? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand what I'm saying.

      The ruling has no relevance to modchips. I'm not making any statement on the legality of modchips or their potential uses, just that the ruling in question has no bearing on the matter.

      The ruling essentially states you can't copyright a "code" required for interoperability. It also states that a code (ex: encryption key) itself isn't an access control mechanism (though that doesn't mean that a code can't be part of an access control mechanism).

      The ruling says nothing about disabling part of an access control mechanism itself (like a modchip would) because it said that Lexmark didn't have an access control mechanism in the first place.

      The ruling *does* however have relevance to another aspect of consoles relating to how games are published. The key they use to sign games in order to allow them to get past their access control mechanism cannot be copyrighted. This means that you can't be sued for copyright infringement by publishing a game using that key without the console manufacturer's 'consent.' The key itself also isn't an access control mechanism, so signing a game with the key is not curcumventing an access control mechanism. This means anyone producing a signed game/disc without the console manufacturer's consent is not at risk can't be sued under the DMCA.

    16. Re:Can we say wow? by anagama · · Score: 1
      • Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

      Just a quibble. This ruling doesn't say it is illegal to do what Lexmark did (make an ink cart that requires a chip to use it). The ruling says Lexmark can't stop others from making compatible cartridges. But Lexmark could make these lockouts increasingly difficult till the cows come home. It just can't sue when some 3d party figures out how to defeat the locks. The locks aren't illegal, and picking them isn't illegal - that's all that is said.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    17. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      The locks aren't illegal, and picking them isn't illegal - that's all that is said.

      Exactly, and that's what is important.

      Console manufacturers have made it incresingly difficult to mod their consoles over the past couple of decades, and they still can't do it right. AFAIK, there's never been a "popular" console that hasn't been compromised.

      And the more difficult the hack, the more money the hackers make. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, for example, that should someone manage to crack DirecTV they will have signed themselves into the instant multi-millionaires' club. Sure, that's a bit offtopic, but the same easily applies to modchips, too.

      It's funny how these companies actually cause their own protection systems to be hacked by indirectly making it worth someone's while in $$$ to hack it.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    18. Re:Can we say wow? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

      There are other uses for modchips, too. The XBox Linux Project, http://www.xbox-linux.org/ shows a way to turn the XBox into a Linux desktop that will not play XBox games at all but can be used for "normal" computing use.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    19. Re:Can we say wow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the modchip MUST remove the copy protections if it is to allow any of the four legal things the GP post stated.

      It is Sony's fault because they put the pirate check code in the same place as the region locking code.

      If they had made them separate, then region unlocking would not have to also remove copy protection unless that was a secondary intent.

      But, no. They made it the same thing, so you cannot region unlock your PS2 without making piracy also possible. That was SONY's decision. They live with it.

      At least that's what should have been the decision.

    20. Re:Can we say wow? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      What do you think the signing mechanism is for? To prevent the execution of "unauthorized" code, of course. AFAIK, game companies have to pay for (or at least apply for) approval from the console manufacturer to create a work. That may not be true, but either way, I, the owner, am prevented from writing my own software with my own computer to burn on my own CD/DVDs to play on my own console.

    21. Re:Can we say wow? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I suffered kneejerk syndrome and didn't read the second half of your post.

    22. Re:Can we say wow? by wang33 · · Score: 1

      What about game mods?
      Halo 1 has a great "trainer" out there that lets you do some cool shiat, like shoot master chiefs out of the tank cannon, trade bodies with an enemy, super jump, never die, etc...
      I own halo 1, so am I a pirate by having a mod chip and copying games to my hdd, so I don't have to change discs to change games? Plus the load times are much faster loading from hdd than any optical media. I have never downloaded a game or even copied a rented game.

      I guess I am of the opinion that I own the hardware I should be able to modify it as I see fit.
      wang33

      --
      PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
    23. Re:Can we say wow? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct. I have a modded Xbox, but I never bought a Mod-chip because only an idiot would pay $50+ for something that can be done for free without a mod-chip. Oh, and I don't use my modded Xbox to pirate games. The very very few Xbox games that I worth playing, I buy. I modded for XBox Media Center, which actually makes the XBox worth owning.

      Otherwise I would have abought a PS2, which has the same games, with shittier graphics.

    24. Re:Can we say wow? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it was a trademark issue. The NES was engineered to lock out any cartridge which didn't present Nintendo's (trademarked) stream of bits on startup. Although the principal subject of this suit was copyright and not trademark law, I would think the same interoperability clause would apply.

      I for one would love to see this ruling overturned, if only for the possible return of the independant console game developer.

    25. Re:Can we say wow? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter; it is not functioning as a replacement part, nor is it something required for the console to function. It's an add-on; a modification. The ruling doesn't come anywhere near modchips.

      Everything else I would say regarding the matter I've already said in another post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=127268&cid=106 39105

    26. Re:Can we say wow? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "PLENTY of legal recourse against the act"

      What legal recourse is there against someone hijacking a plane and flying it into a building? The terrorists are *ALREADY DEAD*; they died when the plane hit the building. What point is there in complaining that as an intermediary step they illegally used a box cutter as a weapon? Nor is it useful to point out after the fact that the gun used to threaten people was a toy that was incapable of doing actual damage.

      If it were just the people in the plane, then I would agree that it was overkill. However, there were tens of thousands of people in the World Trade Center when the planes hit it. Unlike the riders on the plane, they never had a chance to choose what airline might provide the planes that caused their deaths. They couldn't choose to pay more for better security.

      "It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum [bbc.co.uk] just because someone might stick it under a desk."

      How many people have died from someone sticking chewing gum under a seat? Collecting damages is a rational response to vandalism, as it can return the situation to that that would have existed without the vandalism. It is useless in the face of mass murder via suicide run.

      Mass murder and dried chewing gum. Clearly, they are the same.

    27. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument is based on the Red Herring that I am discussing how murder applies to chewing gum.

      We are discussing how useage with illegal intent compares with a usage with legal intent.

      To clarify:

      Chewing gum with a legal intent is to chew gum to exercise the jaw and enjoy the gum's flavour and consistency with regards to accepted local mannerisms. When finished with said gum it is safely deposited in the trash.

      Chewing gum with an illegal intent (in Singapore) is to chew said gum as above, but to either not follow accepted mannerisms when masticating, or to improperly dispose of said gum.

      The results of said illegal activities are to deface, as that article suggests, an entire country and thereby leave millions of people in Singapore disgusted with their country's appearance. Such illegal activities are rumoured to happen in the billions in a population of this size, and cause long term and permanent damage, and are rumoured to continue should the ban be lifted, and may even be continuing illicitly as we speak.

      On the topic of box cutters in airlines:

      A legal intent with a box cutter on an airline might be to open a package, or it may be a tool one normally uses in one's day to day legal work.

      An illegal intent with a box cutter on an airline would be the use of such an item to hijack the flight.

      The result of that illegal acitivity is to deface a city, emotionally harm millions, and kill thousands. This illegal activity is known to have occurred once, perhaps twice, and is extremely unlikely to recurr, meaning a future without such illegal activity is forseeable.

      While the results are not the same, the fact remains that I am certain I could find a way to use most any item illegally, and that to ban items simply because they have an illegal use leads to a world without items. Even items traditionally considered wholesome in nature can be used in an illegal manner, for example spaghetti (watch Se7en). To follow the trend of banning items due to their even single-time illegal use would mean to ban spaghetti from the world. I like spaghetti. Don't take it from me.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    28. Re:Can we say wow? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      This is not a legal/illegal issue. The problem is not that a box cutter might be used for an illegal purpose; it's that it might be used for a *dangerous* purpose. To wit, gaining access to an airplane to crash it into a building. By your argument, it would be sensible to allow people to carry guns on airplanes (they have legitimate self defense and sporting uses) or bombs (demolition).

      You are correct, the linking of mod chips to weapons on airlines is in fact a red herring. So why are you adopting the position of those who oppose mod chips (who would like the link to be made)?

    29. Re:Can we say wow? by shepd · · Score: 1

      You are correct, the linking of mod chips to weapons on airlines is in fact a red herring.

      I'm sorry if "Your entire argument is based on the Red Herring that I am discussing how murder applies to chewing gum." translates to "linking of modchips to weapons on airlies" for you. I'm not sure how you were able to make a sentence where about 90% of the words in it are completely new and think it is still attributable to me, but hey, whatever.

      If you plan to simply lie, I just don't want to discuss the issue with you. Sorry. I have work to do, and I just don't have time to correct you constantly.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  11. What's this? by Trogre · · Score: 5, Funny

    A judge with his head screwed on right?

    What's next?

    Dogs and cats living together?
    North America having more than two presidential candidates?
    Duke Nuken Forever going gold? And GPL'd?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:What's this? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Just think, common sense might not be dead yet! I wasn't sure if any of the Circuit Court judges could find their ass with both hands after some of the crap from the 9th. This is promising.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North America having more than two presidential candidates?

      Last time I checked, Mexico was part of North America, and Vicente Fox was its president.

    3. Re:What's this? by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Canucks to the north of the USA

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    4. Re:What's this? by stubear · · Score: 1

      Mexico is part of Central America dumbass. Canada and the US make up North America.

    5. Re:What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico is part of Central America dumbass. Canada and the US make up North America.

      Actually, North America consists of three countries Canada, United States and Mexico; Bermuda, a territory of the UK; and Saint Pierre et Miquelon, a territory of France. Check your facts next time.

    6. Re:What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North America having more than two presidential candidates?

      Holy shoot yourself in the foot with a bazuka Trogre! If you value your life, don't plan on visiting Canada or Mexico anytime soon.

    7. Re:What's this? by rabel · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, this judge who is "legislating from the bench" will be "retired" once the neocons complete their takeover of the US of A next week.

      Unless you get out and vote boyee!

      MnM fires up the youth vote

    8. Re:What's this? by tepples · · Score: 1

      North America having more than two presidential candidates?

      US registered voters: You too can oust the Republicrats.

    9. Re:What's this? by kayen_telva · · Score: 1

      wow. you are so wrong. before insulting someone, please use google. wow.

    10. Re:What's this? by Laebshade · · Score: 1

      Dogs and cats living together? http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/002690.html
      North America having more than two presidential candidates? http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
      Duke Nuken Forever going gold? And GPL'd?
      http://www.gamershell.com/news/6581.html
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      Ok, got ya there... it's 3D instead of Forever :)

    11. Re:What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Central America is generally defined as the southernmost part of the continent of North America. Central America is not a separate continent.

      Dumbass.

    12. Re:What's this? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Assuming that by North America you mean the USA, and that by "more than two presidential candidates" you mean more than 2 with some realistic chance of being elected, there's still:

      1912: T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson

      1860: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, Bell

      1968: Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace

      1992: Clinton, Bush, Perot

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:What's this? by tsg · · Score: 1

      1912: T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson

      Taft got less than 25% of the popular vote and less than 2% of the electoral vote. He wasn't in the running. It was, however, the best an independent candidate (Roosevelt) had done, but he had already been president as a Republican once...

      1860: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckinridge, Bell

      Bell got less than 13% of the popular vote and about 13% of the electoral vote. But it was a landslide for Lincoln. He had no chance. The best showing by a third place candidate, but we had to go back almost 150 years to find him.

      1968: Nixon, Humphrey, Wallace

      Wallace: less than 15% of the popular vote and 9% of the electoral. No chance.

      1992: Clinton, Bush, Perot

      Perot: Less than 20% of the popular vote, no electoral votes. Again, no chance.

      --
      People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
  12. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That didn't stop them from shutting down my Cox HSI for three days over a vaguely named file I was downloading off of a legitimate Linux tracker with a Torrent application. I had to call Cox to have them turn it back on.

    I have two strikes left, and I didn't do JACK SHIT!! When a consumer fucks up, they pay through the ass -- when they fuck up, you don't even get so much as a God damned apology.

    Maybe it is hightime I relocated to New Zealand. Any .nz peeps want to harbor a political refugee? I eat light, sleep sound and make one helluva' Grilled Cheese Sandwich! One cannot go wrong with those qualifications. Oh, and single, too...

    1. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand sounds ideal for the typical SlashDotter if it is overrun with liberals. I imagine the whining must hit a fever pitch at times like it does here.

  13. OH NO!! by OccidentalSlashy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh...oh my god people....LEXMARK is involved...OH! Ink EVERYWHERE!! Sweet mary moses O'malloy....I...this...just give me a minute. Just give me a...a minute. Wow. Okay, I think I'm ready to handle this. THOSE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES!! WHYY!!!! Why...how could they do this...this day and age...oh, Slashdot, what does this mean....what does it mean....

    oh no, no, no, no....i need a cup of coffee....mooannn..

    --
    vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
    1. Re:OH NO!! by suckmysav · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think more coffee is the last thing you need.

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  14. Indeed. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

    I always thought the Lexmark case was one of the worst abuses of the DMCA ever. They might as well be trying to make proprietary PAPER. And frankly, those damn ink cartridges cost a mint.

    Hopefully we'll see some high quality knock offs and the price will go down.

    This is my 666th post. Too much /., too much by far.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Indeed. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      Hopefully we'll see some high quality knock offs and the price will go down.

      We probably will, but this will also undo the consumer-friendly price fixing in the printer market -- due to market pressures, you can expect not only Lexmark printer costs to go up, but also HP, Canon, Epson, and Brother printers -- after all, they no longer have as much low price competition, and so can afford to raise their prices to increase profit.

      Think about this a bit before disagreeing.

  15. Bought the game... by Finsterwald+P+Ogleth · · Score: 1

    Technically speaking, you bought the CD, box and manuals, plus you paid for a license for use of the game, subject to copyright restrictions.

    No conveyance of ownership is included.

    Sorry.

    FPO

    1. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad your analogy doesn't fit. Nothing has upheld in court software liscensing. I did buy a copy of the binary package on the CD. Unfortunatly a restriction has been put in place by the spftware company limiting my use of a binary package I purchased.

      Unfortunatly for those who purchased the game, if they knew about the problem and bought the game anyway, I don't give them much leeway. I buy games too, and for those games I put up with the obvious flaw, its worth it for me to play the game.

      On the other hand, there are many games on my radar I would like to play, but multiple factors come up. First to stay on topic is copy protection, I could forsee paying for a game, but if the game isn't good enough to overcome my view on copy protection I won't buy it. Second about copy protection is that things like Starforce would not even let me consider the game.

      Last but not least, I have to shutdown linux and boot into windows to play games, linux games get a big plus like NWN.

    2. Re:Bought the game... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Insightful
      plus you paid for a license for use of the game, subject to copyright restrictions.

      Copyright law says nothing about arbitrary "license" restrictions imposed by the publisher. It does say that you get to use the CD, box and manuals you purchased.

      The EULA may look like a contract, but it isn't worth the paper it's printed on because nobody signed it and you weren't allowed to read it before the transaction closed. So that's not a "license" either.

    3. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question, then, is forcing you to leave the CD in the drive a valid copyright restriction?

      If the RIAA had its way and forced people to agree to EULAs to license music, would requiring you to drive a screwdriver into your ears after playing the CD once to ensure that you never listened to it again illegally be a valid copyright restriction?

    4. Re:Bought the game... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let's say I sell you a kitchen table. You pay me $200 for a piece of shiny wood with 4 legs, which I deliver to your house. I make no mention of restrictions, but AFTER the sale, you notice a piece of paper stapled to the bottom of the table. It says that you didn't really buy the table, you bought a table usage license. I have placed restrictions on how you can use the table, such as in the kitchen only and only for eating. If you wish to keep an electronic device on the table such as a TV, radio, or even your cellphone charger, you have to pay me $10 a month in additional royalties. If you fail to comply with the terms, under the power of the DMCA I can enter your house, sieze the table along with anything that may be sitting on it, and require you to pay me a $500,000 penalty. Does this sound reasonable? Would it hold up in court?

    5. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does this sound reasonable? Would it hold up in court?

      I hope so, otherwise I've been spending a fortune on staples, paper and copying these stupid EULAs for nothing...

    6. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically you bought a license to use it... you didnt buy the cd, so how can a restriction of how that CD is used be fine then.

      you have the license to the content, so that would entitle you to use the content. or did they sell you a license to use the cdrom. well that cant be right, because then it is something physical. you own the cd then, not a license to use it. they need to pick one option here.

      they either licensed me the content, in which case they have no say how i access said content, or they sold me the cdrom, in which case they have no say how i use the content.

    7. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately, your 'anology' isn't even entirely accurate. The box of every piece of software I have has, in nice legable black print text telling you that you have to accept a license agreement before you use the product:

      For example:

      "You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

      Here's another one; this one even tells you where you can read the eula ahead of time:

      "You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. The product is license as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund. A copy of the product License Agreement is available for review at www.microsoft.com/office/eula. Product activation is required for continued use of the product, and may be done by Internet or telephone. Instructions and Microsoft's privacy policy will be detailed to the user duing launch of the product."

      Hey, I'm 3 for 3 ... how about this one:

      "The product uses technological measure for copy protection -- you will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the launch of the product. For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license terms). You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

      Another:

      "You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund. Guest operating systems licensed separately."

      Well crap, I seem to have run out of software boxes. The text for all of these was in a large readable bold font. Way bigger than the system requirements. In every case, the text was located on the back of the box.

      I recommend you try reading the box next time you buy some software. If you don't like the fact that they tell you there are additional terms and restrictions that you have to agree to before you complete the sale, then don't buy the package. Nobody forces you to agree to the terms, you always have the opportunity to read them before the license takes effect, and you always have the ability to terminate the agreement.

    8. Re:Bought the game... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I recommend you try reading the box next time you buy some software. If you don't like the fact that they tell you there are additional terms and restrictions that you have to agree to before you complete the sale, then don't buy the package. Nobody forces you to agree to the terms, you always have the opportunity to read them before the license takes effect, and you always have the ability to terminate the agreement.

      So? Just because they print it on the box doesn't mean its legally (or more importantly, ethically) binding.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Bought the game... by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The problem starts when every single thing in the store has a fuckin' contract on it. Everything in the software aisle already does and that is more than enough. I'm sorry but the pervasive and abusive use of contracts by big business means that "But you agree to a Contract!" bullshit cuts zero ice with me. If I pay money for a product then I'm going to get the expected reasonable use of it. I'd wipe my ass with that little piece of paper but they are glossy and therefore useless for even THAT purpose.

    10. Re:Bought the game... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nothing has upheld in court software liscensing.

      What precisely are you basing that on?

      But whether a particular license is generous or restrictive, a simple two-party contract is not "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" and therefore may be enforced.


      Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

      The Court finds that the license agreements are enforceable contracts under both California and Missouri law. California courts have enforced end user license agreements, which are valid under California law. See Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 1089-93 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (end user license agreement valid under California law); Hotmail Corp. v. Van$Money Pie, Inc., No. C-98-20064, 1998 WL 388389, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (applying California law, plaintiff likely to prevail on breach of contract claim regarding clickwrap agreement). Cf. Softman Prod. Co. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 171 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1087-88 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (software reseller was not bound by EULA because it had never assented to the terms and court did not rule on validity of shrinkwrap agreements in general).

      Even if Missouri law applied, the license agreement would be enforceable. Missouri has implemented the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC provides that "a contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract."11 MO. REV. STAT. 400.2-204(1) (2000). "An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined." MO. REV. STAT. 400.2-204(2) (2000). The defendants assert that the licenses are not enforceable because they add additional terms under Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-207, 19 which are to be construed as proposals for additions to the contract. Defendants state that the EULAs and TOU are additional terms which they rejected. Defendants contend that is unfair for them to pay $49.99 for the games and then be unable to install them or access Battle.net without assenting to the EULA and TOU.

      The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC. First, the defendants did not purchase the Blizzard software, rather they purchased a license for the software. A sale consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2-106(1) (2000). When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this term.


      Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway, 2004 E.D. Mo. LEXIS 20369 (Sept. 30, 2004).

      Looks to me like they often are enforced. Sure, there's Klocek, Specht, maybe a few others, but they don't seem to be the dominant trend these days.
      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Bought the game... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      It does say that you get to use the CD, box and manuals you purchased.

      Of course, if you only licensed things, then you didn't really purchase what you would need in order to use those things in the conventional manner.

      The EULA may look like a contract, but it isn't worth the paper it's printed on because nobody signed it and you weren't allowed to read it before the transaction closed. So that's not a "license" either.

      And yet, they keep on getting enforced. See a couple of choice quotes here.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    12. Re:Bought the game... by zurab · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unfortunately, your 'anology' isn't even entirely accurate. The box of every piece of software I have has, in nice legable black print text telling you that you have to accept a license agreement before you use the product:

      For example:

      "You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

      Which means nothing in terms of the sales transaction. There is no contract executed during the purchase of a product at a store. Any further contract (besides sale of a product) between parties must include consideration; there is no additional consideration provided to a consumer after the software has been purchased. No consideration - no contract.

      True - the judge in the bnetd case ruled that when purchasing software consumers are just buying a shiny box and a coaster, but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever - they are clearly buying the software for the purpose of using it. Hopefully, the ruling is cleared up on the appeal and the record set clear.

      Disclaimer - IANAL.
    13. Re:Bought the game... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      The problem with the bnetd case was it wasn't a good case. The EFF should probably not have taken it on because it was bound to be a bad precedent setter for EULA issues. There were too many weak points on which bnetd seems to fail the relevant tests of the DMCA.

      What ended up happening was the judges basically looked at it, decided it was a DMCA violation that was trying to get off on what they saw as a technicality and said well, while that may be true, it's irrelevant because even the DMCA is far more permissive than the arbitrary verbiage placed in the EULA.

      We need clear cut precedent on a pure EULA case that will force this issue to be considered again as a purely contractual issue with none of the baggage of DMCA violations, contributory copyright infringement, or other nasty issues muddying the waters. I want some really smart lawyers to box the judges into a corner and force them to come out and either say any sale can have arbitrary license terms appended onto it after the fact, or no sale can. They need to be forced to look at this in the transactive and contractual context, and not get distracted by the red herring of copyright issues - the works in question are already copyrighted, and they have many avenues of recourse against copyright violators - the EULA is not a tool of copyright enforcement, it's a tool of consumer control and anti-competitive practices.

      Then if the judges argue the first (irrational) position, we have reason to go to our legislators and demand an outright ban on the practice, and if it's the latter, we won't have to worry about EULAs any more.

    14. Re:Bought the game... by Jameth · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that EULA's don't make sense, but as devil's advocate...

      The consideration on an EULA would be, from the customer, that they lose the right to reverse engineer the product or to tamper with the product, and the consideration from the copyright holder would be permission to copy the game from the disk to the hard-drive.

      I don't see where that fails the 'consideration' test, but I also am not a lawyer.

    15. Re:Bought the game... by zurab · · Score: 1
      ... the consideration from the copyright holder would be permission to copy the game from the disk to the hard-drive.

      What are you paying for at the store then? To hang the box on the wall and use the CD as a coaster? Of course you are buying software to install it, run it and use it in the manner that it was designed, and that consideration is given at the time of purchase. I don't see anything additional that is provided by most EULAs.
    16. Re:Bought the game... by bnenning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I want some really smart lawyers to box the judges into a corner and force them to come out and either say any sale can have arbitrary license terms appended onto it after the fact, or no sale can. They need to be forced to look at this in the transactive and contractual context, and not get distracted by the red herring of copyright issues - the works in question are already copyrighted, and they have many avenues of recourse against copyright violators - the EULA is not a tool of copyright enforcement, it's a tool of consumer control and anti-competitive practices.

      Bingo. Nobody argues that when you buy a book you really only have a "license to read". In that case we figured out that person A can *own* a *copy* of a work while person B owns the *copyright*, but somehow with the move to software we allowed that balance to be almost completely eliminated.

      In the meantime, I've gotten into the habit of saying "I disagree" whenever I click an "I agree" button. Not that it matters, as there's nothing that says I can't lie to my own software, and the only thing that says it's not my software is the EULA, which I don't agree to.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    17. Re:Bought the game... by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      I'm curious -- If two guys with a bunch of money to blow on lawyers decided to set up a testcase, wouldn't it be pretty simple?

      Guy #1) Write a notepad clone in VB, include a EULA that transfers copyright over all material created using said notepad-clone to author.

      Guy #2) Buys product, writes article/advertisement/novel/whatever (Something with *real* monetary value)

      Guy #1) Sues #2 for profits from product created with notepad clone.

      Once a precedent is on the books, my understanding is that it's binding in the US, no?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    18. Re:Bought the game... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Making transient copies of software in the course of normal use is already explicitly mentioned in Section 117 of the Copyright Act as a non-infringing form of copying, since it is considered a necessary part of use. The "you need to make a copy to use it" loophole was closed years ago. Whatever talking around people may give this section of the law, it's intent is quite clear and the wording is quite clear - this hasn't been a real issue for quite a few years.


      As crazy as it sounds, the way the EULA pushers in the software industry get around Section 117 is to say that it only applies to a _sale_ of a copy of a piece of software as described in the Uniform Commercial Code, and that you didn't buy a copy of the software at all, you just licensed it. So therefore Section 117 doesn't apply. They know this argument is intellectually dishonest, but they continue to insist on it out of fear that without EULAs all sorts of bad things might happen. Mostly I think this fear has been fed by lawyers. Anyway, despite caselaw as described here supporting the idea that you buying that copy of software, they don't want to admit that you actually bought that software because then it becomes clear the EULA is giving you no consideration and is thus not a valid contract. I should also note that the law is different for all other forms of copyrighted works, where the person buying a copy of the work is considered the owner of that copy, and permitted to do what they want with it within the restrictions of copyright law.


      So anyway, they are trying to take something that looks, acts and quacks like a duck and say it's not a duck at all in order to circumvent the intention of the law. And in several instances, judges have played right into their hands, without in any way addressing the pink elephant in the room - namely that you did buy that software and you do have the right to make 'copies' that are required as part of its normal use, EULA bullshit aside.

    19. Re:Bought the game... by belmolis · · Score: 1
      Once a precedent is on the books, my understanding is that it's binding in the US, no?

      It isn't that simple. First, the decision of a trial court creates no precedent; only decisions of appellate courts create precedent. Secondly, the decision of an appellate court is binding only within its own jurisdiction. So, if you get a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the precedent is binding within the Sixth Circuit but not in the other circuits. A decision of the US Supreme Court sets precedent binding throughout the US. So, to set precedent for the entire US, you have to go to trial and have one side or the other appeal. Only if the appeals reach the Supreme Court and only if the Supreme Court issues an opinion, is precedent set for the entire US.

    20. Re:Bought the game... by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Well sure, but there are virtually always appeals available, especially if the opposing council is weak and doesn't oppose the appeals too vigoursly, no?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    21. Re:Bought the game... by Jameth · · Score: 1

      Thank you for clearing that up. Now, I can confidently state that EULAs are in fact total bullshit, as opposed to just semi-confidently. Further, I can back it up a bit, which is really useful.

    22. Re:Bought the game... by anagama · · Score: 1
      • Only if the appeals reach the Supreme Court and only if the Supreme Court issues an opinion, is precedent set for the entire US.

      And add to this, the Supreme Court gets to pick which cases it will hear - they could choose to refuse to even hear the appeal (although this refusal has some value, it isn't worth anything close to an actual decision).
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    23. Re:Bought the game... by symbolic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund.",

      I tried this once at CompUSA...the manager of the store at which purchased the software told me he couldn't take it back because it had been opened, and I had to open it to see the license. How totally , utterly, and completely STUPID. But, factoring into the equation that it was a Microsoft product, it all makes sense.

      Eventually I did get the manager at another location to take it back if I did not agree with the licensing terms.

    24. Re:Bought the game... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      If two guys with a bunch of money to blow on lawyers decided to set up a testcase, wouldn't it be pretty simple?

      No, that would constitute collusion and is a good way for both of them to end up in jail.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    25. Re:Bought the game... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Does this sound reasonable?

      No, not really.

      Would it hold up in court?

      I've no idea; IANAL, etc.

      On the other hand, if you bought one table like that, and whined, but then continued to buy similar tables, and continued to whine, I'd certainly start thinking that perhpas you ought to have noticed the pattern, and stopped buying the damn tables.

    26. Re:Bought the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I recommend you try reading the box next time you buy some software. If you don't like the fact that they tell you there are additional terms and restrictions that you have to agree to before you complete the sale, then don't buy the package. Nobody forces you to agree to the terms, you always have the opportunity to read them before the license takes effect, and you always have the ability to terminate the agreement.

      Fuck you and your longwinded bullshit about the precious fucking rights of the bastard publishers -- once I've bought it, I'll use it in any goddamned way I want to, including circumvention of their rapacious, one-sided legalisms. Let the bastards find me. I wipe my ass with your mealy-mouthed defense of the shit-eating crooks.

    27. Re:Bought the game... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Once a precedent is on the books, my understanding is that it's binding in the US, no?

      Nah. Precedent is only a strong suggestion. I think it was the Texas sodomy law where the USSC had ruled it constitutional back in the 70s and unconstitutional 2 years ago. The court basically said 'times have changed, the other court was wrong.' Could have the wrong case, but precedent is overturned every once in a while.

      Also, with regards to appellate courts (brought up by sibling post), while the Xth circuit court does not have to consider rulings by the Yth circuit court, the circuit courts and USSC take great pains to avoid conflicting rulings.

    28. Re:Bought the game... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      yet all advertisments for that game has plastered in BIG letters...

      OWN YOUR COPY TODAY!

      Which is misleading to the point of an outright lie.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    29. Re:Bought the game... by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund.

      Good luck trying to return opened software.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    30. Re:Bought the game... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund.

      Have you ever tried walking into a store and saying "I do not wish to accept the terms of the license, and I wish to return this product for a refund." Since most require that you open the box to read the full EULA, and the store policy (based off the demands fo the software manufacturers) is to not accept open boxes, you can't return it, even though the EULA claims that is a valid option.

    31. Re:Bought the game... by MadHungarian1917 · · Score: 1

      Already happened with a woodworking jig.

      The manufacturer included a 'license' in the box (which was not visble from the outside) which basically said you could not give the jig away (makes gift giving a trifle inconvenient) you could not sell or distribute stuff produced with the jig and any new applications for the jig belonged to the vendor. Cant remember the vendor

  16. The thing is....... by KenwoodTrueX · · Score: 0
    The thing is, the ink cartridges did not really use "copy protection", except at a very basic level. I doubt it was very hard to "hack" it. The main problem I have with these chips is they can make the cartridges "expire". But this can be gotten around by editing an INI file before printing using the cartridge (so the date can't be written to the cartridges chip).

    Free Flat Screen HERE!

    1. Re:The thing is....... by KenwoodTrueX · · Score: 0
      By the way, here is a link that tells you how to trick that chip in your ink cartridge so it won't expire: http://pcbuyersguide.com/hardware/printers/smart_c hips.html

      Free Flat Screen HERE!

    2. Re:The thing is....... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      You didn't really buy that cartridge. You're just licencing it. If you don't agree to these terms, just return the cartridge and all used ink (and the paper it's attached to) to the store for a good long laughing at by the store staff. Thank you.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:The thing is....... by shakah · · Score: 1
      I doubt it was very hard to "hack" it.
      Interestingly, one of the three "theories of liability" raised in Lexmark's suit was based on copyright law, as "SCC acknowledges that it "slavishly copied" the Toner Loading Program "in the exact format and order" found on Lexmark's cartridge chip". The court reverses the lower court in section III (B) starting on p 9.
    4. Re:The thing is....... by shakah · · Score: 1
      There's also a promising concurrence starting on p 21, which in part reads:
      I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program.
      and goes on to say:
      If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures "for the purpose" of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward. If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.
  17. Support your local anti-dmca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I heard about this ink/printer suit and the garage door opener I couldn't believe such a law would exist long. However, I'm concerned this ruling does not address the problems with the law itself, and possibly supports it. We need this law struck down, not just ruled against. Get out there and support the EFF and anti-dmca.org. We need the law repealed before they stick the law in your BIOS and linux becomes and outlaw OS.

  18. Great, as far as it goes by mistersooreams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course it's always pleasing when a ruling goes against the DMCA, but we do need to see this small victory in context. Personally I would see this as "one lawsuit too far" in DMCA terms, and the judge has (rightly) nipped it in the bud. But that's a far cry from stemming the tide and actually starting to reverse the creation of the DMCA, which is what we are ultimately pursuing, isn't it?

    So Wahey for this result, and hopefully burning Lexmark's fingers should keep a few of their fellow printer manufacturers away from similar lawsuits. But nevertheless, let's be realistic: this is only a small step in the right direction.

  19. Copyrighted content as non-spam identifiers by gramernatsi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and sc?s ?aire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright.
    This seems like it would invalidate the copyright-based argument for including a copyrighted text block (such as a haiku) in emails as validation of a trusted source.
    1. Re:Copyrighted content as non-spam identifiers by julesh · · Score: 1

      This seems like it would invalidate the copyright-based argument for including a copyrighted text block (such as a haiku) in emails as validation of a trusted source.

      Yes, it does. Perhaps even more clearly:

      See Sega Enters., 977 F.2d at 1524 ("When specific instructions, even though previously
      copyrighted, are the only and essential means of accomplishing a given task, their later use by another will not amount to infringement.")

  20. HIZZAH, Mod chips legal? by sPaKr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article and ruleing go into the fact they at defating the control for interopartion is legal. So if I need a mod chip to boot linux or play my home brew game doesnt that make the mod chip its self legal. INAL but the opionon appears to be opening the door and leading to that the DMCA is vulnerable on several other grounds. Can this be leveraged to for mod chips, tivo hacks, maybe even the broadcast flag it self. Look at me Im drunk with power in burning the DMCA

  21. My favorite branch by nottestuser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is why the judicial branch is my favorite. Sure, they don't always rule the way we geeks would like but at least they try to think instead of just doing what will get them re-elected.

    Executive is the figurehead, legestlative is the mob, judicial is the sanity. Sometimes.

    1. Re:My favorite branch by Politburo · · Score: 1

      at least they try to think instead of just doing what will get them re-elected.

      While federal judges are not elected, there are many parts of the country where local judges are elected positions.

    2. Re:My favorite branch by txag98 · · Score: 1

      Some judges are elected and others are appointed by elected officials. Those appointed judges usually hold the same values and ideas of the people who nominated them. Don't get all giddy over the judicial branch just yet.

  22. HP has done that already by he+who+meows · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HP was selling a line of inkjet printers called "Apollo". They actually had them in the front of grocery stores for a short time here (SF Bay Area). They were only $30, but the catch was that the cartridge was only about 1/2 or 2/3rds filled with ink. So when the ink went out, you would spend as much on ink as you did on the printer :-p. I don't if any other company had tried this though.

    1. Re:HP has done that already by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's basically Lexmark's Modus Operandi. The Lexmark z12 was $52 when I bought it, the ink lasted about 2 weeks (it dried up before we could use it all) & the replacement carts were about $40 each (1 black, 1 color). I'll never buy another Lexmark & after seeing their piss poor performance & even worse service at work, I'll never get any kind of Lanier printer.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:HP has done that already by chrish · · Score: 1

      This is pure stupidity on Lexmark's part, but I imagine they've done some market research.

      All of these folks getting reamed by their inkjet printers (me included) are going to avoid them when it comes time to buy laser printers at the office. Which is a shame, because the Lexmark Optra lasers are great, and much cheaper than the competition.

      Maybe they need to sell them at a good price to overcome the bad karma they've accumulated selling inkjet ink for more than the cost of champagne.

      --
      - chrish
    3. Re:HP has done that already by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1
      Heck, Xerox will give you a phaser printer if you will agree to buy the ink from their web site.

      http://freecolorprinters.com/

      --
      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  23. Game consoles' logo lockouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This also resolves a long-standing problem with game consoles. In order for disks for certain consoles to boot, they must contain copyrighted code and trademarked logos on the disk, which are then displayed on the screen... This should resolve that issue.

    Not that this matters anyway, as all consoles from this point on will go the way of the Xbox and use public-key digital signatures.

    Melissa

    1. Re:Game consoles' logo lockouts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That was already resolved in court years and years ago. Look up "Sega vs. Accolade". Trademark traps ("you can't make interoperable software without violating our trademark! Gotcha!") aren't legally sound in the US.

  24. Rulings for the technologically impared... by Pollux · · Score: 4, Funny

    You just gotta love reading this ruling, it actually makes me feel intelligent.

    Before the printer runs the Toner Loading Program, it performs a "checksum operation," a "commonly used technique" to ensure the "integrity" of the data downloaded from the toner cartridge microchip.

    Of course, you don't have to "understand" every piece of information presented in the ruling, but "understanding" what is written is a very "commonly used technique" to insure the "integrity" of communicating in the English language.

    1. Re:Rulings for the technologically impared... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      You missed out the Doctor Evil voice and "quotation" gestures.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:Rulings for the technologically impared... by warrped · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Ok, please note that judges are not expected to have ANY technical expertise related to the scientific or technological merits of the case at hand. If he puts it in quotes, he's likely referring to what the original finders of fact (read = jury) established when the case originally appeared in the lower court. Moreover, these were likely specific definitions that formed the crux of the matter at hand, at least as it pertained to the original ruling. Putting something in quotes DOES NOT mean that he doesn't understand english; rather, it means that he is referring to the original holding and the terms it used to frame the matter.

      --
      - Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
  25. bnetd? by sheetsda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does this decision relate to the bnetd case?

    from the page's decision quote: "companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program."

    It says specifically "manufactured goods", but overall bnetd seems to have been the same thing.

    1. Re:bnetd? by optimus2861 · · Score: 1
      I read bnetd as being primarily about the enforceability of Blizzard's EULA, which was a resounding win for Blizzard (in part because the defendants stipulated that they had agreed to it, meaning it was an uncontestable fact -- they tied the judge's hands! I can't help but question the quality of their legal representation). DMCA was less of an issue there; Blizzard was just throwing a number of things at bnetd to hope at least one of them would stick (if they couldn't string bnet up on EULA-violation they'd go after them for DMCA-circumvention, or vice-versa). That they got all of them to stick was just wonderfully good fortune for them.

      Anyway, it's the EULA-related parts of that ruling that are truly scary (i.e. "You don't buy software, only a license to use."), and need to be overturned if bnetd can stick it out to appeal.

  26. Wow by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just Four Hours Forty Five minutes since this was first posted.

    I understand a Dupe from 5 months ago, but come on now.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  27. Don't get your hopes up... by shaneh0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This case is pretty clear, in my opinion, and I doubt the Supreme Court would hear it even if Lexmark does appeal, which I don't think they will.

    But the DMCA won't really be tested until it's challenged in front of the Supreme Court, which has a tendency of leaning towards business interests in property disputes.

    One glimmer of hope is that the sixth circuit is 2/3 conservative, more resembling the high court then the liberal Ninth or Neo-Con Fourth. That might explain why it has the second best overturn record in the past 10 years, and it might mean that there's hope for our cause after all.

    This is one more reason the election next week matters. One more republican-appointed justice and you will see a sea change in our nations judiciary. Roe v. Wade (The right to have an abortion) gets most the press, but things like DCMA will be affected just as much.

    1. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade any time soon. That said, I favor a conservation court and hope it stays that way for a long time.

    2. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      If, as you suspect, Lexmark doesn't try to appeal, then this court order stands, and can be referred to as precedent for similar battles with other corporations in the future which try to abuse the DMCA.

      So even if Lexmark doesn't try to appeal, you can bet your privates that there'll be a whole swarm of other companies trying to get this ruling overuled by a higher court when their turn comes to employ the DMCA in a similar way.

    3. Re:Don't get your hopes up... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Really? Any nominee to the high court by President Bush will be Pro-Life. It is his (the Presidents) personal belief that abortion is wrong, and should be illegal, and he gets this belif from his religion (God) and is therefor unassailable.

      If just two high court justices are appointed in the next four years by President Bush, you can be certian that a case will come up which will fully or partially overturn Roe v. Wade. If you're curious, take a look at Stenberg v. Carhart
      530 U.S. 914 in June 2000 (decision) which was 5-4.

      Rehnquist, Stevens and O'Connor have been swaying in the breeze for several years now (The former is is 80, the two latter have had battles with cancer in the recent past). Thats one Pro-Life and two Pro-Choice (I use those terms loosely) decision makers.

      If you think it won't make a difference...well, just ask youself how bad could Kerry screw things up with both the house and senate in Republican hands?

      This election isn't about the war in Iraq, its about the future of privacy and individuals rights. But Americans can't ssem to think more than one quater ahead, so there's no use trying to get them to look at the big picture.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  28. This has cost Lexmark some sales. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Lexmark doing crap like this has caused them to lose some sales. I switched over to Epson because of crap like this and so have others I do work for.

    1. Re:This has cost Lexmark some sales. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Epson any better? Last I checked, all their carts had a smartchip installed in them to prevent third party refills.

    2. Re:This has cost Lexmark some sales. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You can buy 3rd party carts off the shelf at most any office supply store.

    3. Re:This has cost Lexmark some sales. by OzzyRulez · · Score: 1

      Lexmark doing crap like this has caused them to lose some sales.

      As if their shitty printers didn't have some part in that?

  29. Re:Bloody PDFs by barc0001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't read the link in your browser's status bar to see what it is before you click it?

  30. Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion? by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion?

    Judge Feikens claimed that, because Lexmark admitted that there was a "magic bit" that would turn off the TLP sequence, that SCC should have found it.

    This really presumes that they knew that there even was a "magic bit" in the first place.

    This is, IMO, insane. Without apriori knowledge of the existance of a bit even existing, how were they supposed to have found it?!?

    Other people might look at this as a victory against the DMCA, but I, for one, don't think that the judge who could have written that dissenting opinion still being a seated judge, able to hear future DMCA cases, using the same flawed logic, counts as a victory.

    Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.

    -- Terry

  31. Does that mean I'm allowed to circumvent .... by snester · · Score: 1

    Does that mean I'm allowed to circumvent game console lockouts and regional lockouts legally and produce my own content?

    --
    A shrubbery
  32. Re:Bloody PDFs by morbuz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Istall the TargetAlert extension for Firefox.
    That would have shown you a small pdf icon after the url.

    http://www.bolinfest.com/targetalert/
    --
    CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
  33. what, no paperless office people here? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I only work from my computer screen.

    Someone wants a hardcopy? I email it to them. "It's faster this way, don't you think?"

    Fax request? I use a fax-modem.

    I love passing the printing buck to someone else.

  34. Is this anything like.. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

    This:

    Posted by michael on 10-26-04 16:45
    from the morning-in-america dept.
    EvanKai writes "Jason Schultz writes, "This just in --- Static Control Corp. has won its appeal against Lexmark over the right to produce after-market replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers." You can find a PDF of the ruling here and more about the case on EFF's site." It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished; this was just a ruling on whether Static Control would be enjoined (prevented) from selling their replacement cartridges while the suit proceeded. The original court issued an injunction, and the Appellate Court felt that Static Control had a good chance of success in court and overturned the injunction. The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    1. Re:Is this anything like.. by julesh · · Score: 1

      The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.

      Yeah, sure. But with a ruling from the supreme court that states "the district court decided that Lexmark had shown a likelihood of
      success [...] we view Lexmark's prospects
      for success [...] differently" I think they're unlikely to get very far. They'll probably drop the case.

    2. Re:Is this anything like.. by slcdb · · Score: 1
      It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished ... The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.
      I have to disagree with that sentiment. From what one of the judges opined:
      On remand the first question should be whether Lexmark can show the requisite "primary purpose" to pirate a copyrighted work rather than to ensure that their own cartridges work with Lexmark's printer. If not, its case against SCC should be dismissed.
      It sounds to me like the case is over for Lexmark. It is totally implausible that Lexmark will be able to convince any semi-sensible judge (especially one that just got virtually bitch-slapped by a superior court) that SCC's primary purpose was to disseminate pirated copies of Lexmark's copyrighted works, rather than to manufacture compatible printer cartridges.
      --
      Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
  35. Link to the EFF website... by rbullo · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...so that I can't read it.

    Seriously. Yahoo's web filter blocks EFF.org. And a slate of others that it shouldn't block(such as the Libertarian Party's website).

    --
    OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
    1. Re:Link to the EFF website... by temojen · · Score: 1

      So why do you use Yahoo's web filter then?

  36. in a bind by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would print that opinion out, but the ink would cost more than my Lexmark printer.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  37. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by bradkittenbrink · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.

    Are you serious? The fact that it's an appointed position is the only reason the whole bank of judges wasn't as incompetent has him. At least judges have time to at least read what they're working on. The people who pass these laws are so busy keeping their eyes on the polls that they make this guy look enlightened.

  38. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.

    This is the entire reason that judges are appointed instead of elected: so that they have the ability to render an unpopular opinion. Their job is not to make you happy, it is to ensure justice for one and all.

    The fact that both sides were represented and argued before coming to a decision should affirm that the process does work, and that justice was met.

  39. and by logical extension ..... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Taking the logic of the decision one step further, any copyright or DCMA protections a manufacturer of a device like the Xbox or the PS2 to lock the owners of those devices into only buying games with the manufacturer's protections in them are not valid either.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  40. I hate to say I told you so... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    but I told you so. Well, not exactly. But this hacks off one of the abuses of the DMCA: using its protections for stuff that ought to be covered under a patent (if your work is so original as to merit a patent).

    The DMCA was "Copyright fix in the Internet Age, version 1". I expect Version 2 will be coming around shortly. There is a lot of pressure for action:

    • The patent system is broken, so people are trying to use copyright law in its place
    • The RIAA, MPAA, et al want piracy made a capital felony (it seems)
    • The blogs are taking over the role of news source from the mainscam media
    • Courts are getting smarter
    • Open Source principles are at work in business, as the dotcom bubble has given way to the network age
    • Politicians see the power of free information, especially in the way it affects their ability to campaign
    In short, we're all more sophisticated and just more used to the impact of technology than when the DMCA was made law in the late 90's. We'll probably be just as short-sighted next time around, but at least this batch of problems will be addressed. I hope.
    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Politicians see the power of free information, especially in the way it affects their ability to campaign

      I can assure you that incumbents see the internet as a very dangerous enemy as it gives a very loud voice to what they precieve are small, underfunded, fringe opposition groups.

      Incumbent politicians are the ones with the votes - that is why you should be very afraid of DCMA 2.0

      --
      -- $G
    2. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

      >be very afraid of DMCA 2.0

      Oh, I agree. The stakes are high. But we will be much more prepared this time.

      Expect the capitalist-copyright-nazi side to try to spin it as a battle about porn. Expect the otherwise unlikely alliance of Drudge, Slashdot, the EFF, and Google to push for more freedom for information.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    3. Re:I hate to say I told you so... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      Expect the capitalist-copyright-nazi

      You need capitalists on your side to win. Calling a capitalist a "Nazi" neither helps your case as well as being an oximoron - A capitalist national-socialist? Please.

      True capitalists do not believe that regulation of free trade is the answer. And intellectual property is most definately regulation.

      --
      -- $G
  41. OT: Great sig by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Had to steal a deviation of it. :P

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
    1. Re:OT: Great sig by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Amen. I had no problems paying "higher" taxes, when the money was rolling in, and the employed people of the US were buying our products.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:OT: Great sig by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      You're the first person in almost a year of using that sig to reply and not say something negative :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  42. This is the main reason I don't own a printer by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    I refuse to purchase a printer that requires ink cartridges that cost over $5. Ink is not that expensive. The cartridges are not that expensive. They're just charging you that much because you don't have a choice if you want to use your printer again. If that rules out all printers (and so far it has) so be it. They're not getting my money. I was disgusted to find that the last printer I bought was $50 and the cardtridges were $30. No one should need an explaination to see that this is just wrong.

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:This is the main reason I don't own a printer by HybridJeff · · Score: 1

      You've got a printer that has ink cartridges at less than $5? What is it, I want one!

    2. Re:This is the main reason I don't own a printer by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is why you don't use inkjet printers. Get a laser instead. You can easily get an older (or even not so old) HP laserjet off ebay for $100, and refurb cartridges are $30 each. A $30 laser cartridge lasts a long time if you're just using it at home, and unlike ink cartridges, doesn't have such a limited shelf life. (Ink cartridges left in the printer too long will experience ink drying out and gumming up the nozzles, rendering the whole cartridge useless.)

  43. Cato Institute on copyright by tepples · · Score: 0

    It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago.

    U.S. citizens registered to vote can help take back Congress and the Presidency by voting Libertarian. Libertarians believe more strongly in the invisible hand of the free market than the Republicrats do, but at least one libertarian think tank recognizes that copyright interferes in a free market (PDF) and that its coercion on users should be minimized.

    1. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All you Libertarians are seriously deluding yourselves if you think leaving it in the hands of "the market" will solve anything.

      There is no "invisible hand", and "the market" is a non-entity. It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (corporations) who cannot, by their very definition, take the interest of society in consideration. To believe that some magic forces can somehow act in the favor of society and correct things by themselves is beyond wishful thinking, it's downright irresponsible and infantile.

      What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries? Their behavior will worsen, and they will get more grabbing and take more control of our everyday lives in other ways. Leaving them free will not help at all!

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by bnenning · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All you Libertarians are seriously deluding yourselves if you think leaving it in the hands of "the market" will solve anything.

      Markets aren't perfect, but they easily beat central planning, as demonstrated by the entire 20th century.

      It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (corporations)

      The market is composed of individuals such as yourself, who can choose to not do business with entities whose practices you disapprove of.

      To believe that some magic forces can somehow act in the favor of society and correct things by themselves is beyond wishful thinking

      And yet it's perfectly rational to believe that government acts in the best interests of the people, and not in ways that benefit current officeholders? Corporations have to produce something that people want, or they go out of business. Governments can take what they want at gunpoint.

      What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries?

      We'd all be dead from rat poison in our food, no doubt.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by conradp · · Score: 1

      Are you joking, is this like the first time you've ever heard about the benefits of freedom? Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" if you need a refresher course.

      If you'd like to see how your post might sound to a libertarian please read the following:

      There is no "interest of society" and "society" is a non-entity. It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (people) who cannot, by their very definition, take the interests of the market in consideration...

      If that sounds like gibberish to you, then you get a feeling as to how your post sounded to people who understand the benefits of freedom and liberty.

      Lesson #1: in voluntary, informed transactions, both the seller and the buyer end up with more than they started with, because each gave up something of lesser value to them in order to get something else that had greater value to them. Think about that.

      There is a role for government, and that is to ensure that transactions are voluntary and informed rather than being imposed by physical force or the threat of force.

      Do you believe that transistors are "magic" and that the idea that they can somehow correct things by themselves is wishful thinking?

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    4. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by arose · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see your "informed" and rise by a truckload of "marketing".

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please spare us the flag waving. I can hear Star Spangled Banner when I read your post. What rubbish.

      Freedom from tyrany is also freedom from responsibility. I thought we as humans had evolved beyond the "Me ug, my fire, mine, mine, mine!" into more social, caring beings.

    6. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patents themselves are government regulation of the market. Patent run counter to the free market.

    7. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Going one step further,

      I'm more and more thinking that the ultimate regulation is the concept of incorporated entities. And, over time, I've got less and less support for that concept.

      Incorporated entities (companies, trusts, etc) are great vehicles for making money. Legal spearation of owners from liability and a prime directive of profit. Corporations have virtually only one legal death (bankruptcy). So long as it makes money faster than taxes and inflation eats it away, it can live until it owns the world.

      I think we'd have a lot more ethical behaviour if owners and executives had full legal repercussions of an incorporated entities actions. Company-X makes drugs that steralise you? Owners and executives have full criminal and tort consequences? I think another round of testing might be on the cards ... or at least full disclosure of the facts.

      This would also solve the problem of $2 shelf companies (but not asset and jurisdiction shifting).

      Full free trade amoung people, but let's not distort the market with phoney legal inventions.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    8. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Markets aren't perfect, but they easily beat central planning, as demonstrated by the entire 20th century.

      They are? What I see the market doing so far is create organisations whose sole purpose is the domination of that market, in ways that are detrimental to the evolution of society and to the well-being of its constituents who are not members of the new oligarchy.

      Don't take me for a communist: I believe that the capitalistic ideal works well in a sane economic environment. But you can't apply an economic principle to social problems and expect sound results. What's more, I am not convinced that a capitalistic system can be self-balancing and naturally gravitate towards a balance of the factors that result in the best consequences for society. As we can now see, even with significant input from regulators, the system is leaning towards more control by a certain class, not an equilibrium. It's quite possible (and I believe) that the system is chaotic, and thus may have different attractors, and that we are now seeing one of those that results from the tinkering to the system.

      The problem with libertarians is that they (you?) believe that the system is necessariy self-balancing, like some kind of bell curve, and that it will automatically gravtiate towards a balanced solution if left to itself. That's where the wishful thinking rests. I believe, as many others do, that the economic system is chaotic and that balance may be one of many attractors towards which it would gravitate. Constant tugging may be required to send it towards a less powerful attractor state. I do not advocate complete control or centralized planning either, but I am definitely in favor of carefully planned, numerous but minimalistic in themselves, interference in the system. Even better, I believe there are certain specific changes which could be made to the system that could help make it be more stable.

      The market is composed of individuals such as yourself, who can choose to not do business with entities whose practices you disapprove of.

      Can I? As another poster pointed out, the issue is that corporations are ready to do ANYTHING to get more power and money, which may entail breaking the law and being completely amoral. A corporation will break the law to get a monopoly or keep it as long as the consequences of its illegal behavior end up costing it less than the profits gained from the actions. Such behavior will, over time, lessen my choices and favor the corporations over the individuals, and allow them to have more control over what I buy (simply by controlling what I CAN buy) than I do myself.

      And yet it's perfectly rational to believe that government acts in the best interests of the people, and not in ways that benefit current officeholder

      At least, the government and individuals have a CHOICE in the matter. It might not always act in the best interest of people, but it often does, or at least tries to. You must always safeguard against individuals within the government (elected or otherwise) acting against the common good. Such safeguards appear to be inefficient or insufficient in the US at the moment, and that's a big cause of the problem.

      We'd all be dead from rat poison in our food, no doubt.

      No, but we would most likely live in some corporate version of 1984.
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    9. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by jeffasselin · · Score: 1
      It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (people) who cannot, by their very definition, take the interests of the market in consideration...

      Which is where you are being fallacious: People can and will take the interests of the gorup (society, market) of which they are a part of beyond their own. Call it enlightened self-interest or altruism, those behaviors make all the difference. Corporations, by definition, care only about bringing profit for their investors. Those investors, when they are few and mostly in control of the corporation, project their own interests and altruisms into that corporation. But faceless investors and shareholders as well as corporative officers who have little knowledge or care of what really happens inside the company's walls won't do that.

      Are you joking, is this like the first time you've ever heard about the benefits of freedom? Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" if you need a refresher course.

      You mean economic freedom, I guess? I don't much care about what has been written so much as what is currently happening. The reality shows consequences which economists and policy makers didn't anticipate, and must be corrected.

      And even supposing that there is too much government control, the solution is not to stop all influence and control! If someone eats too much, is stopping eating going to help him? You are only advocating a radical solution which would be no better than the actual problem. What I think we need is some lateral thinking: a different kind of interventionism for a different kind of society.
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    10. Re:Cato Institute on copyright by ppanon · · Score: 1
      Markets aren't perfect, but they easily beat central planning, as demonstrated by the entire 20th century.
      Markets are quite efficient at allocating scarce resources (raw materials, capital, labour) among multiple competing alternatives. Markets do not do anything for preventing worker exploitation, protecting worker safety, human rights, and preventing pollution; as clearly demonstrated by the portion of the 19th century that included the industrial revolution.
      What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries?

      We'd all be dead from rat poison in our food, no doubt.
      Maybe not, but a lot more of us would be dying or sick from atmospheric/groundwater poisoning or workplace hazards.

      I mean for crying out loud, people continue to smoke when they know it's got a good chance of killing them via any one of a number of long painful ways, and yet you expect them not to buy Nikes because they're made by a child in a sweatshop 2,000 miles away? Get real.
      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  44. Re:Irobeth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starmanta? Is that you?

  45. surprised? by Vash_066 · · Score: 1

    I'm reading thru all these comments seeing that a lot of people are surprised by the fact this lawsuit even happend. In the day and age where you can sue McDonalds because your FAT, and companines are trying to squeeze every last penny out of us that your really surprised?

    1. Re:surprised? by goodie3shoes · · Score: 1

      "where you can sue....because your FAT...."

      Wasn't that Microsoft patent ruled invalid?

      --
      BSA: "Would you like a free Software Audit"? me: "No, thanks. My software is all Free".
  46. pirating ink by cbr2702 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This ruling is about the ability of people to replace the ink in their printers with ink made by people other than the printers' orgional manufacturers. DMCA may be in the title but this has nothing to do with pirating.

    --


    This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
  47. Linux is an outlaw OS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask SCO, the fuckers.

    1. Re:Linux is an outlaw OS. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      But for $699, you can have a lawful copy of Linux.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Linux is an outlaw OS. by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      No you can't. SCO has no authority to distribute the Linux kernel. See, the copyright on the Linux kernel belongs to a whole bunch of people; and if any one of them objects to SCO distributing it, and if SCO's distribution wouldn't be covered by "fair dealing" / "fair use" provisions {which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction}, then SCO are violating copyright law by distributing the Linux kernel. By imposing a "fee" of $699, they are also committing fraud, and quite likely demanding money with menaces.

      SCO's only defence against the copyright violation charge is the GPL; but since they have broken the conditions attached to the permissions it grants, then those permissions are withdrawn. However, anyone who has received a copy of the Linux kernel from an unlicenced distributor is licenced to distribute it {unless and until they break the rules}, since it is the copyright holder, not the distributor, who grants the GPL permissions.

      The GPL has already been shown to be valid in a Court of Law {albeit a minor one in Germany}; and if the GPL is not legally enforcible then no EULA will ever be legally enforcible either, since most EULAs ask you not to do things the Law of the Land gives you an explicit right to do. {Analogy: If a woman signs a piece of paper stating that she consents to have sex with a man at a certain time on a certain date, then changes her mind, and he has sex with her anyway, it's still rape; because you can't waive your right to say "no" to sex.}

      Copyright is one of the greatest misnomers going. It's actually a temporary privilege granted on behalf of Society At Large, in exchange for the promise that a work will eventually enter the Public Domain.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Linux is an outlaw OS. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have added a smilely.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Linux is an outlaw OS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yes. If you'd have added a smiley it would have been funny as opposed to dangerously misinterpretable.

      Example:

      I've had your mother :-) And she was a crap shag :-)

  48. It just keeps getting better the more I read by Armethius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It looks like these judges have an exceptional grasp of the technology stifling possibilities inherent in the DMCA. If you look in the concurring opinion you will find this passage:

    I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program. The crucial point is that the DMCA forbids anyone from trafficking in any technology that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work." 17 U.S.C. 1201(2)(A) (emphasis added). The key question is the "purpose" of the circumvention technology. The microchip in SCC's toner cartridges is intended not to reap any benefit from the Toner Loading Program - SCC's microchip is not designed to measure toner levels - but only for the purpose of making SCC's competing toner cartridges work with printers manufactured by Lexmark.

    Not only did they smack down Lexmark in this abuse of the DMCA's (and copyright's) provisions, but they go so far as to state that the DMCA should be read to not apply to companies aiming to create a monopoly not supported by law.

    I only wish this was a SCOTUS ruling instead of a Circuit ruling. Apparently there are now conflicts with other Circuit rulings.

    1. Re:It just keeps getting better the more I read by bani · · Score: 1, Troll

      I guess Lexmark forgot to mail their bribes to the circuit judges. Or maybe vinny and guido who Lexmark hired, were unable to "convince" the judges of the "correct" ruling in the case.

  49. The owner of a copy by tepples · · Score: 1

    Technically speaking, you bought the CD

    You bought the CD from Wal-Mart and are thus the owner of a lawfully made copy of a copyrighted computer program. And if you patch your installation to make it work on a machine without a working CD drive, U.S. copyright law doesn't consider that an infringement (17 USC 117). Yeah, infringement is orthogonal to circumvention, but as this article points out, judges are still hammering out the scope of the DMCA's circumvention ban.

  50. Seriously: Give Up Already by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 1

    I'm really waiting for them to give up. Let's face it, if people want to steal it they're going to steal it. Copy protection isn't going to stop them, and it only hinders the people who pay for the game and want to play it.

    Apple seems to take this philosophy with their software. I've never had to enter a CD key for any software I've bought. Of course, we all know Apple makes most of its money off its computers, and you're guaranteed to be "buying" at least one copy of OS X with your computer.

    I think that game publishers won't have it, though. I assume that it has to have copy protection or it won't be shipped.

    --
    The space unintentionally left unblank.
  51. Appealed? by tepples · · Score: 1

    How does this decision relate to the bnetd case?

    Has the bnetd case made it to a federal court of appeals yet? Which circuit is the Eastern District of Missouri in? Perhaps Americans need conflicting opinions in the different appeals circuits so that the Supremes will feel obliged to step in and clarify the DMCA.

  52. Sega v. Accolade by tepples · · Score: 1

    Combine this with the 9th Circuit ruling in Sega v. Accolade , and you have a pretty good case.

    1. Re:Sega v. Accolade by hyphz · · Score: 1

      Probably not, as the suit mentions that the cartridges "derived no benefit from the Toner Loading Program".

      By writing software for a console, you would be deriving benefit from its firmware and standard libraries.

    2. Re:Sega v. Accolade by tepples · · Score: 1

      By writing software for a console, you would be deriving benefit from its firmware and standard libraries.

      Did you even read Sega v. Accolade? It covered developing for a console. Unlicensed games may use the firmware (as did early IBM PC games which used IBM's copyrighted BIOS) but do not use the "standard libraries" distributed to licensed publishers. The last time I can remember that a console maker won big against an unlicensed game publisher against was Atari Games v. Nintendo, where Atari Games lost because it defrauded the Copyright Office into disclosing plans for the NES lockout chip. American Video Entertainment, on the other hand, successfully defended against a Nintendo lawsuit because it had used a different method of modding the NES; no fraud, no guilt.

  53. Yeah, fuck the environment! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    I went to my friends house one day and he had a *STACK* of lexmark printers new in the box. I said, "what the hell could you possibly do with 5 printers?" he replies, "I got them on sale for 19.99 each. Thats half the price of ink." He just chucked the printers in the trash after he used the ink they came with.
    It's about time companies started getting charged the true cost of raw materials. A $19.99 printer couldn't exist if it weren't being subsidized by a) far poorer nations an b) the planet itself. We'll all pay for it in the end.

    1. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Informative

      or c) future ink sales.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hush. Don't ruin a perfectly good eco-nut rant with logic.

    3. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      You missed the point: Lexmark is essentially dumping the printers at far below cost knowing that they're gonna fleece the consumer when they go to replace the printer cartridges. If you think that the printer cargridge costs are fair, then why does one cartridge by itself cost more than the two cartridges included in the printer?

      Most consumers will feel constrained by the fact that they already bought and installed the printer to be willing to toss the printer because it's cheaper than the cartridges it contains... Also: (especially with Wintendos), repeatedly replacing printer drivers (if you go for varying models) could quite possibly foul up the whole OS.

      I, myself, remember buying a printer for $20, and then spending an additional $45 for a set of replacement cartridges. If saving money were more important than ecological thriftiness, I should have just bought two printers.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      You missed the point: Lexmark is essentially dumping the printers
      Yep, I get it. But if someone is buying the printers in bulk as it's cheaper than replacing the cartridges, then simply throwing them in the trash, then it's not terribly environmentally friendly is it? By the way, it wasn't an eco-rant, just pointing out that it's somewhat unsound behaviour from an environmental perspective. You might not give a shit, but sooner or later someone's gonna have to.

    5. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by arose · · Score: 1

      Nice crystal ball you have there.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    6. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In contrary, it is the most environmentally friendly option. It will force lexmark to fix their broken business model and stop participating in the throwaway madness.

    7. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      By the way, it wasn't an eco-rant, just pointing out that it's somewhat unsound behaviour from an environmental perspective

      And what's the difference between that, and an eco-rant??? (Not that I disagree with you -- read the last sentence of my first post on this subject).

      An AC said that if everybody started buying their printers just for the ink cartridges, it might envourage them to stop their silly practice --- I doubt it -- they'll just up the price of the printers a bit -- or do something similar to make the practice non-economical.

      If you really wanna send them a message, you might want to put the empty cartrige into a new printer, drill a hole thru the motor and mail it back to them parcel post.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    8. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      he he - should be modded +1 super duper obvious :)

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    9. Re:Yeah, fuck the environment! by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.

      If the stock analysts see that a company sold "x" printers, and that means over the next "y" years, we'll sell x*y*(# per year) cartridges, then the stock price may zoom up on anticipation of future revenue.

      By the time the revenue stream reflects that a large percentage of of the printers never resulted in a single refill, the original stock holders have sold their stock and moved on to the next project.

      The flaw is in thinking that the business model has something to do with selling printers, rather than with selling stock.

      [This is a general observation, not specific to this company/situation]

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  54. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    So what our saying is security through obscurity works?

    can't have it both ways.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  55. Cheap printing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HP Deskjet 3500 - $39.00
    Color Cartridge - $21
    Black Cartridge - $19

    Fast, cheap and USB. Just replaced my DeskJet 600 (rest in peace), purchased in 1994 for $100. The ink was getting a bit expensive for it, anyway.

    However, there is a perfectly good Lexmark sitting in the basement. It works fine, except the cartridges cost about $35 a piece.

    Whats more disturbing is that Lexmark still practices the disgusting habit of invalidating a full ink cartridge after a certain date stamp is met.

    This is the side of IBM that we hate.

  56. Injuction - by morcheeba · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been following this case and glad to hear this. SCC has been prevented from selling their product for about 8 months now ... will lexmark have to reimburse them for their lost sales? or, how about customers, who have been deprived of a legal cheaper product?

  57. FAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sue Micky D's because your FAT?

    because your File Allocation Table what?

  58. Please drop the childish nonsense by crucini · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I absolutely hate this kind of comment:
    I am actually very shocked by this ruling. It looks like we Americans still have at least ONE branch of governemt that is working "For The People". The rest have all sold out to big business.

    The court ruled on the law. They decided that Lexmark was stretching the DMCA beyond what Congress intended. It has nothing to with being for or against "the people".

    If Congress had written the DMCA to support this scenario, the court would probably have upheld it.
    1. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but branches of government doing their jobs according to actual law is rare these days.

    2. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a lot of bad people and a lot of good people in government. I don't think that, per se, everyone in government is plain evil and trying to take over the country, however I have seen some documentaries where congressmen say things like "they sneak things into bills and my they (their aids) don't catch it in time".

      With that said, the judicial branch, as a whole, isn't that corrupt. Yes, the supreme court is full of old people who barely know what is going on in the world and are lied to an auful lot; just listen to jack valenti talk to them, if you look around to find some recordings he is sinisterally humble when talking to the supreme court. There are patches, such as LA county for example, or Chicago (mostly localised in cities I would think(, which are corrupt to the core, but as a whole the judicial branch isn't that bad yet.

      Frankly, I'd like to wring congresses neck for keeling over to the demands of the exeuitive branch and splitting their powers into a number of branches under exeuitive order. For some reason, they think americans want that kind of dictatorship.

    3. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The court ruled on the law. They decided
      that Lexmark was stretching the DMCA beyond
      what Congress intended. It has nothing to with
      being for or against "the people".

      Geeze, I thought this was a governmnet of, by and for the people.

    4. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      "Geeze, I thought this was a governmnet of, by and for the people."

      Damn. What country have you been living in for the last 200 years?

      Unless, by "people" you mean white male landowners, which was the colloquial definition of an equal man when the constitution was written. Now it's simple male corporate executive, but its basically the same thing in our modern context. (By the way, I'm white, male, and a own a small company. I also don't agree with the previous statment, but have found it to be disturbingly true in many - but not all - areas.)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      This is why I fear the re-election of GWBush. I fully expect two to three supreme court replacements in the next four years. I think I could probably deal with the repubs in the house and senate (though I'd prefer it split), and four more years of a stupid Texan in the WH would keep the jokes rolling, but to end up with all three branches leaning the same direction (either direction, btw) is just freakin' scary.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by ptr2004 · · Score: 1

      That is because only RIAA and MPAA coughed up money to get DMCA passed. If Lexmark had paid up then I am sure they would have gotten an printer cartridge exception

    7. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA and MPAA have valid claims about intelectual property being "stolen" whether most here want to admit it or not. Lexmark was not using the DMCA to protect intelectual property, but to try to enforce a hardware monopoly.

    8. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Should Kerry win, expect to see at least John Paul Stevens and maybe Ruth Bader Ginsberg retire.

      Should Bush win, expect to see William Rehnquist retire.

      There's a slim chance that Sandra Day O'Connor would retire in either case, but since she's the key swing vote in a lot of cases, and she realizes what she means, she may well decide to sit until a more moderate president comes along.

      As for where the Court leans, it would do well to review the cases that have been decided in the last half-century. The Supreme Court, even when seemingly stacked to the left or to the right, tends to run a very middle course. As an institution, the Court really dislikes upsetting precedent unless it's really called for, which is why, despite the generally conservative leanings of the current Justices, things like school prayer have been repeatedly slapped down. They also dislike getting involved in political decisions, hence the recent dismissal on technical grounds of the Pledge case, and the unwillingness to delve much into the Second Amendment cases brought to the Court's attention in the last couple of years.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    9. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the SCOTUS will tend to be a bit more moderate (thank goodness), but I'd still be a bit concerned with a 6-3 panel.

      BTW - I got your sig before I read your pen name. All I have to say is "Popcorn!"

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    10. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      governmnet (sic) of, by and for the people

      Such a government is one of the scariest things I can imagine. It is, literally, mob rule. There are no standards for proper behavior nor methods to enforce it. That's why we have "a government of law, not men."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No meetings. :)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:Please drop the childish nonsense by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      If Congress had written the DMCA to support this scenario, the court would probably have upheld it.
      It is not the courts job to uphold laws written by congress. It is their job to determine if a "law" is constituional or not and then make their judgement. The DMCA forbids people TALKING about "curcumvention techniques". If I were to make a web page that only TALKS about how to break some crappy DRM, I would be guilty of a CRIME under the DMCA. It is REALLY sad when congress passes a law that is against our first amendment right.

      I absolutely hate comments that state the purpose of the Legislative branch is to "uphold" laws written by congress. The Legislative branch is supposed to be the arbitrator of whether a law is Constitutional or not; if a law is Constitutional, then they should enforce that law.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
  59. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion?

    Now how do you expect us to do that without reading the article?

  60. Lasermonks: Low Ink Prices by talon_262 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you don't have a problem with low prices on ink cartridges while supporting a group of Catholic monks in Wisconsin, go here the next time you need to buy an ink cartridge. I've ordered a couple of times from them and haven't had any problems with the ordering process or with their products. With them, I get my Epson Stylus C60 cartridges for about 1/4-1/3 the price of the Epson OEM cartridges at local stores.

    They also seem to think very highly of /., because they carry a /. banner at the bottom of their home page referring back to a thread about them here earlier this year (in which I had originally heard about them).

    --

    Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
  61. The main reason I keep older lasers in service by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    I agree, in fact it irks me to no end the fact that when you go in the store to buy a printer, they don't include the required cable. Funny rule of thumb, modems come with both ethernet and usb cables, but printers simply do not.

    There are many older lasers out there that either take refurbished cartridges, or will take raw toner. You have your choice to either buy the official toner which tends to be pretty cheap, or buy something similar but for a photocopier which might be even cheaper. Sure you have to replace the drum and developer from time to time, but it's in my minds eye worth it in the long run to keep my cost of consumables down.

    Even if you have an old clunker like an HP laserjet II you can find those cartridges refurbished for under $50/each. Even at $100/each per 3000 pages this works out to be less than your typical ink jet. I still use inkjet, but for printing bulk text I go laser. Even at only 300DPI it's crisp, clear, and easy to read.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:The main reason I keep older lasers in service by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      in stores where the cable doesnt come in the box, its usually at the request of the retailer you are at. mass stores (walmart, target, etc) generally have cables in the box, where as consumer electronic stores (Best Buy, Circuit City, etc) generally do not.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  62. A great quote by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the ruling:

    "Franklin Computer, 714 F.2d 1240, and Formula International, 725 F.2d 521, involved copies of Apple's operating system program -- a program whose size and complexity is to the Toner Loading Program what the Sears Tower is to a lamppost."

    Also, what's really great about this ruling is that Lexmark effectively shot themselves in the foot. By making the bytecode of the TLP a prerequisite for making an ink cartridge work (through the use of either a checksum or a CRC, it's not entirely clear which), Lexmark itself makes the TLP uncopyrightable in the context of using that bytecode as a key for making the ink cartridge usable. That is, even if the code *could* be written some other way for the purpose of performing the same computations that the TLP does, it only works if the checksum requirement is met, meaning that the code pretty much has to be the way it is. (See pages 11-12 in the ruling.)

  63. Could this decision break Habeas' antispam haiku? by Crash+Gordon · · Score: 1

    From Judge Feikins' appendix (Page 26 of the pdf):
    However, an otherwise copyrightable text can be used as a method of operation of a computer - for instance, an original, copyrightable poem could be used as a password ...
    Under this reasoning, an individual who copied a poem solely to use as a password would not have infringed the copyright, because in that scenario, the alleged infringer would have the defense that the poem has "merged" with a method of operation (the password).


    So it seems to me that a spammer could use Habeas' copyrighted haiku header, claiming that it was being used as a "password" and therefore (at least in the 6th Circuit) not infringement. Of course, IANAL. But that's what it looks like to me.

    Of course, Judge Feikins is speaking strictly for himself here, not on behalf of the 6th Circuit. But it's a clear indication of his position...

  64. Re:Wouldn't it be easier to just not pirate? by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree... assuming, of course, you realize that the only pirates in this story are the printer manufacturers setting up artificial monopolies so they can sell ink for 7 times the price of Dom Perignon.

    --
    Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  65. Insightful?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Um, Congress can't amend the Constitution.

    Article V of the Constitution seems to disagree with you. Beginning of Article V:

    "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."

    How fucking sad that we don't even know what our Constitution says.

    -truth

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    1. Re:Insightful?? by typobox43 · · Score: 2, Informative

      which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Congress may propose amendments, but they cannot ratify them. This is left to the state legislatures. An amendment cannot come into being through an act of Congress alone. As a side note, that passage of the Constitution also allows for ratifying conventions to be held in the states. However, this method has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition (the 18th Amendment).

    2. Re:Insightful?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      And I ackowlegde this by my post. Note I included "propose" in my quote. Had the grandparent said "Congress cannot amend the Constitution by itself then I wouldn't have posted what I did. But a blanket statement of "Congress can't amend the Constitution" is misleading since they get the amendment process rolling to begin with.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    3. Re:Insightful?? by kfg · · Score: 1

      ". . .shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."

      Emphasis mine.

      You might want to consider reading Article V all the way through to the end, as well as look up the word 'propose.'

      KFG

    4. Re:Insightful?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      ummm... duh. So please tell me, how does that make the grandparent's post of 'Congress can't amend the Constitution' any more correct since Congress is who gets the ball rolling? Yeah, it doesn't.

      If Congress doesn't propose amendments, then how does the Constitution get amdended? Magic? The grandparent implies that Congress isn't in control of the amendment process, which is flat out wrong. See my other reply in this thread, numbnuts, especially since my original reply included "propose." You might want to consider reading my post all the way through to the end as well as look up the phrase 'reading comprehension.'

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    5. Re:Insightful?? by kfg · · Score: 1

      how does the Constitution get amdended? Magic?

      By ratification by the states.

      The grandparent implies that Congress isn't in control of the amendment process. . .

      Congress cannot amend the Constitution. Period. Only the states can do that.

      . . .especially since my original reply included "propose."

      Yes, that's why I quoted it and suggested you look up its meaning.

      KFG

    6. Re:Insightful?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      I'll the game

      So what do the states vote on to amend the Constitution? They can't vote on nothing. They vote on the amendments Congress proposes. Thus, both Congress and the States together amend the Constitution. Other than the rare occurrence of the states getting together by themselves, the normal procedure is that the two work together to amend the Constitution.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    7. Re:Insightful?? by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1

      should be "I'll play the game."

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    8. Re:Insightful?? by kfg · · Score: 1

      Other than the rare occurrence of the states getting together by themselves, the normal procedure is that the two work together to amend the Constitution.

      In other words, Congress cannot amend the Constitution.

      Adieu.

      KFG

  66. Pinch me please by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 2, Funny
    Based on the events of the day, I am conviced that I am simply dreaming.

    Evidence #1: Federal court issues a very common-sense interpretation the badly-abused DMCA and limits this abuse.

    Evidence #2: The Red Sox are about to win a World Series.

    1. Re:Pinch me please by Da_Fridge · · Score: 1

      Point 1 makes lots of sense. But in regards to point 2, The curse of the Bambino is still alive and strong. If the Red Sox can beat the Yankees in 4 straight games, so can the Cardinals.

      --
      If I wanted water, I'd ask for DiHydrogen Oxide!
  67. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    yes. Exactly!
    You get it. A+

  68. Canon all the way by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I pay under $2 a cart for my i560.

    Sure i could have bought 5 lexmarks for the price of the printer, but i'm happy to do that.

  69. wow, but what about DECSS by asscroft · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The primary use of DECSS, just like the microchip in this case, is to make the DVD operate with linux, just like the microchip was used to make the printer operate with the toner cartridge. They weren't trying to pirate the printing program, and that's why dmca doesn't apply. those who used decss to play movies weren't trying to pirate the movies so why didn't this outcome happen in that case?

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  70. Found on a gas cap. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Technically speaking, you bought the CD, box and manuals, plus you paid for a license for use of the game, subject to copyright restrictions.

    I bought a car about a week ago. A couple of days later I went to fill up the tank and I found the following on the gas cap: (paraphrase)

    • By removing this cover, you agree to the following:
    • You agree that GM (Gates Motors) retains ownership of this vehicle, and you have only purchased the wheels on which it was delivered.
    • You agree that you will only have this vehicle repaired by a GM authorized dealer.
    • You agree that you will not attempt to disassemble, reverse engineer or repair this vehicle on your own.
    • You agree that, should GM dictate, you will blindly accept any upgrade or modification to this vehicle they offer you.
      (if you refuse such an upgrade, you agree that you will forfeit any right to use the vehicle).
    • You agree that you will pay for any such upgrade whatever charge GM deems acceptable.
    • You agree that, despite the forgoing, GM shall not be responsible for any malfunction or failure of the Vehicle, including malfunctions which cause death and/or dismemberment, even if GM has been informed of the likelihood of such such malfunction or failure.
    • if you disagree with this license, please return the vehicle to your GM dealer for a full refund before removing this cap.
    Is this license legally binding?
    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  71. Applicability to DECSS?? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you read the second-last page of the decision, it appears to be a dissenting opinion, but it brings up some good points that would seem to apply to the DECSS case:

    The DMCA defines "circumventing a technological measure" to mean avoid, bypass, etc., "a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." 17 U.S.C. sect 1201(a)(3)(A)(emphasis by judge). Therefore, under the plain meaning of the law, circumventing a technological measure is only a violation of sect 1201(a) if the device allows consumers access to a work that they are not otherwise permitted to have.
    .....
    If this language of the statute were not enough, it is clear from the legislative history that Congress did not intend this provision to apply to devices that merely facilitated legitimate access. ..... The aim of sect 1201(b) was to restrict devices used primarily for piracy, and not those that facilitate legal use of products.

    What can I say: I like the idea of Linux DVD players.
    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  72. Re:Bloody PDFs by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    No. I hardly ever check the URL before clicking. Checking the URL each time I clicked a link would be even more of a pain in the ass than having a PDF pop up occasionaly.

  73. Brilliant! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for that.

  74. A market needs sellers and buyers by tepples · · Score: 1

    [The market is] composed of essentially psychopathic entities (corporations) who cannot, by their very definition, take the interest of society in consideration.

    A market needs sellers and buyers. Won't consumers vote with their dollars and act in the interest of society?

    What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries? Their behavior will worsen

    Evidence? Apart from antitrust legislation, which some libertarians seem to support because they consider predatory pricing to constitute coercion, what can the government regulate more efficiently than a private regulatory body such as Underwriters Laboratories (for electrical appliances) or Orthodox Union (for food purity)?

    1. Re:A market needs sellers and buyers by Hast · · Score: 1

      A market needs sellers and buyers. Won't consumers vote with their dollars and act in the interest of society?
      I'm not agreeing with the original post but I'm a bit curious about this satement. You often see it as consumers has the power of putting bad businesses out of business.

      Has that ever happened though? Has it ever happened with a large enough company that hasn't just been grossly incompetent? (Ie they would be going out of business anyways.)

      I'm just curious since you hear a lot about it but it never seems like businesses go out of business becuase of "consumer rage".

  75. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ruling does nothing for DeCSS, but it might apply to software like Xine which could now include encrypted DVD support. DeCSS was nothing more than a DVD ripper, and is obsolete because the key it used was revoked. Almost everything now uses libdvdcss, which unlike DeCSS only handles CSS encryption and does not rip DVDs in any way.

  76. Re:Yes it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three quarters of the states can call a constitutional convention and amend (or even replace) the constitution and there is nothing congress can do about it. Congress is not necessary for an amendment, though the convention method is rarely used.

  77. Darl would be proud of this attempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    From the ruling:
    The Toner Loading Program relies upon eight program commands add, sub (an abbreviation for subtract), mul (multiply), pct (take a percent), jump, if, load, and exit

    and

    The Toner Loading Program for the T520/522 printers comprises 33 program instructions and occupies 37 bytes of memory.

    Good thing Lexmark stood up to protect their IP from theft! Obviously these particular 33 instructions must have taken years and millions of dollars to develop.

  78. But...what about video game consoles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the days of the Atari, anyone could make a cartridge for that system. That created the porno games, the ultra violent chainsaw massacre game, etc. By the time NES came out, the law changed. Everyone had a monopoly on their own system.

    Nintendo has been doing this since the 80's. I don't understand why console people can do it, and printer people can't...

    1. Re:But...what about video game consoles? by parkrrrr · · Score: 1
      Back in the days of the Atari, anyone could make a cartridge for that system.
      I recall reading somewhere - perhaps in Steven Levy's Hackers - that it was a Big Deal when the first unofficial Atari VCS cartridge was released, because there was a lot of stuff that had to be reverse-engineered to make it happen, and Atari wasn't interested in helping with that. Yes, anyone could make a cartridge for that system, but Atari sure didn't want them to. I don't believe the situation was any different with the NES or SNES. If anything, it was easier to get Nintendo to license you the technology to do it their way than it was to get Atari to even consider licensing a game they hadn't written themselves.
  79. the judge has (rightly) nipped it in the bud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a 3-judge panel.
    2 of the 3 ruled against Lexmark.
    1 judge thought the DMCA was just fine.
    It could easily have gone the other way.
    Remember that next week when you vote for the guy who gets to appoint federal judges.

    gewg_

  80. Re:Irobeth by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    Because sooner or later they would find a way around it. Haven't you looked at your e-mail lately? Why do you suppose spammers are sending strings of nonsense words, and referring to dog-worming tablets {sold under the pretence that they may contain some of the drug Sildenafil Citrate} as "\/i4gr/\" rather than the more-obvious "Viagra" ? Answer: On purpose: to get past filters that were designed to keep them out!

    It'd take about 15 minutes to set up an anti-GNAA filter -- and, coincidentally, that's about how long it would work before someone found a way to bypass it. It then becomes a pointless game of cat and mouse, just like e-mail Spam filtering. And meanwhile, the content will become more and more offensive.

    The best thing in the long run is to simply ignore it. GNAA and others are just sad, pathetic individuals with no life of their own, so the only way they can get their kicks is by spoiling things for other people. If you respond to their postings, then you will only encourage them. The trolls may claim to hate Slashdot, but we know this is false. Slashcode is Open Source, so they could always set up their own message board -- something they have consistently failed to do. There are also plenty of closed-source message board systems, for those who simply need to feel they are stealing something rather than accepting a gift offered with grace. They have consistently refused this offer because the truth is they need Slashdot, when they are down in their parents' basements with their tweezers and magnifying glasses.

    {I once wrote a message board of my own, and I came up with a really good way to keep both trolls and normal people happy. I'm not going to describe it here, though, because that might reduce its effectiveness.}

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  81. These DMCA articles are comforting by Illserve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They take me back to a time pre 9/11, when the DMCA was the biggest problem on my radar. Such a warm and comforting time when I think about it now.

    I mean, imagine back to living in a USA where your biggest concern is a law about copying software and recharging ink cartridges.

    Seems like utopia compared to the world we're now in.

  82. DMCA won't be tried. by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    This case is too weak. The problem is Lexmark has completely no foot to stand on - they still could hit the "copyright violation" bell on copying their program (arguably uncopyrightable) - one can change the program AND re-create a new hash to match it, so it's not strictly the only possible "keycode".

    But the DMCA claim was completely misplaced. DMCA protects PROTECTION of COPYRIGHTED work. That is you can't circumvent protection of DVD movies, e-books, games, any "work of art" that is copyrightable. This chips circumvents access to measurement of toner, printing with ink, using replacable cartridges. You can PATENT these things but you can't COPYRIGHT them. And DMCA applies only to copyright stuff.

    Actually, this means you could try to circumvent DVD protection if the DVD disk didn't contain a movie but, say, set of algorithms or driver to some machine. With special intention not to copy/redistribute the driver, just to control the machine with 3rd party software and the driver...

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  83. Re:Irobeth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soon it may no longer be an issue, apparently law enforcement are investigating the individuals behind gnaa for their connections to right-wing hate groups.

  84. My favorite quote: by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Since I'm sure nobody got around to reading to the end of the article, the court made a very important point at the end:

    Instead, a better reading of the statute is that it requires plaintiffs as part of their burden of pleading and persuasion to show a purpose to pirate on the part of defendants.

    This is a huge victory for fair use. The court recognized that allowing anyone to sue anyone else for copyright infringement in effect created a monopoly, stifling creativity. Not that I expect frivolous lawsuits to come to a screeching halt, but hopefully we'll see a little more common sense in the future.

  85. OTOH by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for the "give them the car, sell them the gas," business model to come into play. Obviously they've already started the "sell them the gas" half. I expect to see the "give them the car" half kick in any day now. Yep.. annnnyyyy day now.

    1. Re:OTOH by el_gordo101 · · Score: 1
      --
      TODO: Insert witty sig
  86. Buy a laser :) by NoMercy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There more expensive, can't print color photos as well as you would like, but they will run for 5000-10000 pages before needing a new toner cartridge, the ink can't dry up any more than it is, and it doesn't do a 'head cleaning' which dumps 1/2 the ink into a large sponge at the bottom of the printer every time you switch it on :)

  87. Re:Bloody PDFs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hardly ever check the URL before clicking..

    That's your problem, get over it.

  88. Small Corporations by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    I am not an economist, but the legal seperation of corporation from person not only works for large companies, but for small ones as well. As it stands now, a single person wanting to go into business can incorporate to insulate himself from possible failure of his company. Without this protection, he's risking all of his assets and possibly criminal penalties. I suspect that a lack of protection in this area may lead to fewer entrepreneurs in the system. Yes, the way that the larger corporations abuse the right is wrong, but abolishing corporations altogether is not the solution either.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Small Corporations by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      The issue is that this separation removes essentially ALL responsibility from the shareholders and leaders of the corporation.

      What if instead the only protection was financial? It would certainly be better, because some consequences of the actions of the corporation would fall on those who made those decisions and brought them into being, but certain people have this quais-religious attitude to profit and might not even see that as a deterrent.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  89. *sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
    We could go back and forth forever. Congress is involved in amending the Constitution. Just deal with it. If they don't propose the amendments, then the amendments don't exist for the states to ratify. The only time the Constitution has been amended without Congress was the 18th Amendment, and that was repealed. You won't accept I'm right, nor will I accept you are. To continue to do the semantic dance is a waste of both our times. You won't convince me I'm wrong and it's pretty safe to say that I won't convince you either.

    -truth

    --

    I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    1. Re:*sigh* by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Of course they are involved in it, he didn't say they weren't. He said they couldn't amend it, which is true. With out additional support from the states the Constitution stays exactly the way it is short of military uprising.

      He can't convince you because you are choosing to be wrong. The states CAN ammend without the Congress, Congress CAN NOT ammend without the states. Easy to understand.

    2. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      The states CAN ammend without the Congress, Congress CAN NOT ammend without the states.

      I never once said otherwise. In fact, in other replies in this thread, I said the exact same thing. My exception to the original post was that he did not add the qualifier "without the states." He simply said that Congress cannot amend the Constitution, which is only partially correct. I acknowledge that amendments are ratified by the states, but to imply that Congress absolutely cannot amend the Constitution is flat out wrong since they start the process of amending the Constitution 99% of the time. The states CAN amend the Constitution by themselves, but almost every time, they RATIFY proposed amendments. Erego, the states and the congress, together, amend the Constitution. Excluding the Congress half of the process is to neglect the way the system works most of the time. And THAT is easy to understand.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    3. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats like saying, "I can amend the constitution"... ...simply by having connections to congress, to get congress to propose my amendment. Therefore by your logic, I could "get the ball rolling" by sparking the idea for the amendment.

      You can read into cause and effect all you want. The fact of the matter is this: Congress can NOT amend the constitution. Thus the original statement was true. There is a large difference between PROPOSING an amendment and actually AMENDING.

    4. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      No, that is assinine. You are so far removed from the process that it is not a correct analogy. I wouldn't even concede that a senator gets the ball rolling. It is a two part process, Congress is the first part, the states are the second. Only in rare circumstances can the states go at it alone. I never said the Congress amends it by itself. But to say that Congress has no part in the two part process of amending the Constitution is just as wrong.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    5. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      And for any other potential respondents, i'll argue ad nauseam about this, so keep them coming. I won't budge. The argument people keep saying is like "2 = 4," but they keep leaving off "2+." You don't get to 4 unless you have both parts: "2+2." You might as well save your breath though, you'll never convince me otherwise.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    6. Re:*sigh* by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      Only posting anonymously because this is has gotten so rediculous....I am a new AC to the discussion.

      I won't budge......You might as well save your breath though, you'll never convince me otherwise.

      It must suck to be so close minded. What is the point in a discussion if you have already made up your mind? I guess your nickname should have been the first clue. Dude, you are so far off base it is amazing to me. The start of this was a true statement, the Congress does not ammend the constitution, just as the President doesn't set the budget. I assume you say that Congress makes the laws....oh what's the point, you are too closed minded to even consider the falacies in your stance. Thank goodness you aren't a Justice.

    7. Re:*sigh* by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the argument is precisely opposite. He stated 2 does not equal 4. You are the one that wants him to qualify, it CAN equal 4 if you add another 2 to it.

      I do agree that we may never convince you, willful ignorance will over look cognitive dissonance.

      Let's compare directly.
      2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2)
      Congress... can not amend .... the Constitution (without states)

      You'll find both statements are true with and without the parentheticals.

    8. Re:*sigh* by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      I hate pushing the 'Submit' button instead of the 'Preview' button....

    9. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      Thank goodness you aren't a Justice.

      Why, because then I'd be appointed since W doesn't want activist judges? He wants Justices that will strictly interpret the Constitution aka closed-minded judges.

      As for being close-minded, I am no less close-minded than the other side claiming Congress has no part in the Amendment process. Christ, I even provided an authoritative link stating the opposite of the thread-parent's generalization "Congress can't amend the Constitution," yet I'm the one obviously in the dark.

      Anyway, this comment struck a chord: "I assume you say that Congress makes the laws" Yes, actually I would say that. Contrary to your point, I am quite open-minded. Please correct my understanding that Congress makes the laws. And please don't tell me that a Senator/Representative authors it, gets it voted on in the House/Senate and then vice versa, and then signed by the President is not "making law" because the President is the one that signs it. To do this would rehash the amendment conversation since you need both halves. I'm serious: AFAIK Congress makes the laws. If your argument is other than the Congress/President example I just provided, please, please, please correct me.

      And you didn't post anonymously. ;-)

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    10. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      Let's compare directly.
      2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2)
      Congress... can not amend .... the Constitution (without states)

      OK, now we're getting somewhere. I buy this argument. HOWEVER, Congress's job, it's very function, is to draft laws, some of which alter the Constitution (if ratified by the states to speak completely). To ignore Congress's primary function, in the context of the Constitutional amendment process makes no sense.

      But I will concede your way of looking at it, in the context of the equation I provided, is not flawed.

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    11. Re:*sigh* by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      "I assume you say that Congress makes the laws" Yes, actually I would say that. Contrary to your point, I am quite open-minded.

      But you don't say the President makes laws do you?

    12. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      But you don't say the President makes laws do you?

      Correct. I would say he signs the laws that Congress proposes, just like the states ratify the amendments proposed by Congress in the amendment process. Congress drafts them both, i.e., "making them" and the President/States sign them. Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws." *shrug*

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    13. Re:*sigh* by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      Similar to the amendment process, you need both halves, but I, personally, would not say the "President makes laws."

      According to the constitution, you do not need both halves for an amendment. It can be done without Congress. That is the point people are making. The Congress can not pass a law without the President signing or vetoing it (ie, he has to be a part of the process), but the states can skip the Congress entirely (although despite what others have said, this has never happened successfully, at least I think others said it happened, but according to this it never has). Therefore, by your reasoning (you need both halves, therefore the Congress can amend the constitution) the President makes laws. This was the source of my original frustration. I completely agree with you, we are mostly arguing semantics here since Congress has drafted every amendment, but your statement I believe continues to be false in the strictest sense. (For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.) If you want to continue to hold to your position, I can understand why, but will have to respectfully disagree since the states have far more say in the amendment process than Congress (in my (sadly) not very humble opinion).

    14. Re:*sigh* by TheHonestTruth · · Score: 1
      The Congress can not pass a law without the President signing or vetoing it

      Actually, they can pass it w/o him. They can pass it into law with a 2/3 vote after he sits on it (or if Congress is not in session), though I guess that falls under "without him vetoing it" since it is a "pocket veto."

      For what it's worth, I would typically just leave this be, but I decided to jump in for kicks. Hope you don't mind too much.

      I don't mind at all since I'm only continuing this (past my original reply actually) for kicks. Hell, this userid isn't even my original one. I just created it with the purpose of bringing up weaknesses in people's statements I thought were important without being my usual please-everyone self. If I'm a dick, I'm a dick. If I'm wrong, then prove it to me. I basically speak what I think to be the honest truth when using this userid (though i haven't used my original in a while). Anyways...

      To nitpick, my main problem with this whole argument is really around the "input" each has to the process. Congress drafts the law. Someone in Congress pours over the wording, gets support, and they vote on it. Then the president/states just say "mmmm ok." So I wouldn't say the President makes laws, like I wouldn't say the states "amend" the constitution (though especially after this conversation I wouldn't say congress amends it either _without_the_states_). I truly view the process, both amendments and "making law" as Congress getting it 90% there and thus they should get the majority of the credit, though strictly speaking 90% isn't 100%. I see where you and everyone is coming from, you still need the other 10%, but I feel that the other 90% deserves the majority of the credit of the process, and thus the slang for "Congress amends the constitution" should be ok. Saying the opposite, shouldn't. Likewise, Congress makes laws, the President doesn't. *shrug*

      -truth

      --

      I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...

    15. Re:*sigh* by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      and thus the slang for "Congress amends the constitution" should be ok.

      This I can easily except. The beauty of slang, it removes all symantic problems!

  90. I wonder by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "If you do not accept thte terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."

    What happens if you attempt to return the software, but the merchant refuses to accept the return and refund your money?

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  91. Revisit the Jon "DVD" Johannsen Case by tilleyrw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In light of the ruling that the DMCA cannot be applied in cases of fair-use,
    the prior ruling agains Jon should be presented to the courts for re-interpretation.

    If a reverse-engineering of a product can be framed in terms of providing
    increased service to consumers or enabling service to those deprived
    because of physical handicap (deafness, blindness, vision problems, etc.)
    it is now legal because of this ruling against Lexmark.

    Intuition tells me that the tide has only started to turn...

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
  92. Re:Anyone else read the partially dissenting opini by dpilot · · Score: 1

    This also presumes that they judge has been appointed with the best interests of Justice in mind, and not some political agenda, either liberal or conservative. (or neo-conservative)

    This works in with Senate confirmation of Presidential appointments.

    Unfortunately, the House has become a Republican Marching Body, and the Senate is tending that way, rather than both being varying degrees of Deliberative Bodies.

    That is reason enough to vote for Kerry. I don't have to consider any of *his* plans, because he can't do much of anything without Congress. But I want to STOP our current one-party rule.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  93. great quote from the decision... by ecklesweb · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Apple's operating system program--a program whose size and complexity is to the Toner Loading Program what the Sears Tower is to a lamppost
  94. Re:Irobeth by xchino · · Score: 1

    There is a filter for this kind of crap, it's called moderation. If you don't want to see it, raise your threshhold.

    --
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
  95. Don't do it. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    By taking the software back you have legitimised the licensing terms.

    Perhaps you should send a letter to Microsoft, something to the effect of. By reading this letter you here by agree that I may use, copy, modify and reverse engineer you software to my hearts content. If you do not agree don't read this letter.

    Then when they sue you for breach of there contract you've got a counter claim.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Don't do it. by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Then when they sue you for breach of there contract you've got a counter claim.

      Interesting idea. : )

  96. Lexmark = teh suck by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 1

    And lexmark is by far the worst abuser of this business model.

    And how. I made the mistake of buying a Lexmark printer, and on top of the ridiculous cost of ink cartridges, the quality is past shitty. I've had to return 1/3-1/2 of them as defective.

    Granted, Lexmark did agree to replace them, after going through a very time consuming and painstaking process to ascertain that, no, I was not a drooling idiot and yes, the cartridges were useless, but it just shouldn't happen so much in the first place. From here on out it's either third party cartridges or a new printer for me. Going through the defective cart song and dance just isn't worth the hassle.

  97. Not true in Japan by Froobly · · Score: 1
    there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them.

    The Japanese Diet passed a law a few weeks ago, banning reverse importation of CDs. Beginning in January, it will be against the law to bring a legimately licensed US version of a Japanese music CD into Japan, because of the differences between the two markets.

    If you don't believe it, read this favorably-worded article in Japan's most reputable newspaper. Or read this response from one of Japan's major music distributors.

    It's BS, and of course I didn't believe it when I first heard about it. The worst part is that in some facility, I work for the bill's sponsors.

  98. Amazing by freality · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so, since "lock out" mechanisms (like DVD copy locks) are of a necessary form and function, they are ideas and not non-functional expression, and so are the proper domain of patent, not copyright, and so the DMCA can't extend copyright protection to them. Wham-bam-thank-you-m'am.

    Next question, where does this leave the same mechanism if it were protected by patent?

  99. Re:Irobeth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know all of this. I was only replying to try to get a rise out of some GNAA sympathiser. I want them to try to 'declare victory' over me, like mbonig and starmanta. You know, just to see some 17 year old feel good about himself just because he can post crap to slashdot and get around an IP ban.

    -- ExtremeGoatse! posting AC due to a bad karma posting ban.

    PS. I advocate censorship against the GNAA. That means you, Penisbird!

  100. Successful boycotts by tepples · · Score: 1

    You often see it as consumers has the power of putting bad businesses out of business. Has that ever happened though?

    Ask Google.

  101. Are you sure? by RandyOo · · Score: 1

    I was looking for a cheap printer recently, and saw the HP Inkjet 3520 selling at Wal-mart for $29, with an included tri-color ink cartridge. That ink cartridge alone cost $22. I had heard of the scam that the included toner cartridges with laser printers is only half full, so I checked the volume of ink that it came with and compared it to the ink cartridge sold by itself, and sure enough they were the same. (8ml) Bingo! $7 printer! You have any links about less-than-full included ink cartridges? I'd just be curious.

  102. Corporate immunity is part of the problem by tepples · · Score: 1

    Corporations, by definition, care only about bringing profit for their investors.

    Then perhaps the definition is at fault. Some claim the government should hold investors, directors, and executives significantly more accountable for the company's actions than the current government holds those of public corporations as we know them. This would give investors an incentive not to invest in enterprises that hurt the market/society.