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)."
DUPE?????
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
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,
Yeah, it's only two stories down in the YRO section.
Promising Ruling In Lexmark DMCA Case
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?
is a struck down DMCA, but this is a start.
Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
You can't read the link in your browser's status bar to see what it is before you click it?
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
Istall the TargetAlert extension for Firefox.
http://www.bolinfest.com/targetalert/That would have shown you a small pdf icon after the url.
CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
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?
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.
...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!?!?
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:
... how about this one:
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
"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.
I would print that opinion out, but the ink would cost more than my Lexmark printer.
--
make install -not war
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.
Had to steal a deviation of it. :P
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
What precisely are you basing that on?
Pro-CD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
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.
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.
/., 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).
They also seem to think very highly of
Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
I see your "informed" and rise by a truckload of "marketing".
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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.
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 :)
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.
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?