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)."
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,
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?
Not only the right decision, but one that quotes Lawrence Lessig. How cool is that?
Carousel is a lie!
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.