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)."
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
Timothy the dupe king reigns again.
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.
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.
They'll just shift the cost back to the printers if third-party sales of refills interfere with sales figures.
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.
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 We need the law repealed before they stick the law in your BIOS and linux becomes and outlaw OS.
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.
apterous.org
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.
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.
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?
Learn something new.
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!
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.
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.
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.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
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"
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Hush. Don't ruin a perfectly good eco-nut rant with logic.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
- 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?(if you refuse such an upgrade, you agree that you will forfeit any right to use the vehicle).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.