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)."

Comments

Thats good

[Orgazmus]

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

Re:Thats good

[AstroDrabb]

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.

Copy protection removal tool for legal use

[IgD]

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.

Don't break out the champaign yet

[nz_mincemeat]

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.

Support your local anti-dmca

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Great, as far as it goes

[mistersooreams]

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.

Re:Great news.

[mog007]

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?

Re:Can we say wow?

[The Only Druid]

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.

Re:Bought the game...

[zurab]

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.

Please drop the childish nonsense

[crucini]

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.

Insightful??

[TheHonestTruth]

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

Re:Bought the game...

[bnenning]

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.

Found on a gas cap.

[Stephen Samuel]

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?

Applicability to DECSS??

[Stephen Samuel]

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.

Re:Bought the game...

[symbolic]

"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.