Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Lets Utilization Rights Stand
Moof writes "The United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case between a programmer and his former employer. What makes this news is the fact that the court is letting stand the rulings of the lower courts: Essentially if someone owns a physical copy of software, then they are allowed to modify the code as part of their regular use, no matter what other agreements are in place."
it would make a great precedent except that it happened afterward.
Am I allowed then to also reverse engineer any software I buy on a CD?
An executable is also a "binary" source code (series of 1s and 0s), then I can transform it into assembly using a disassember.
So if I buy Windows XP, then I can run some of its parts through a disassembler, so I would have a more readable "source code", then I can change it any way I want, bypass any security mechanism, customize it to my liking and so on.
I don't understand it either. It sounds from TFA as though he wrote these programs in the normal course of his employment, clearly making the software the property of the company. That he "placed locks on the code and stipulated that Titleserv could run--but not alter--the programs" sounds as though he was attempting to hold the company hostage. Even with some additional information in one of the comments on TFA, it sounds like it was a co-ownership situation, where the company had every right in the world to make modifications as it needed them.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Ergo not really. According to the article the changes constitute "an essential step in the utilization" of the program
You do not need to rip music to your computer hard drive as an essential step to utilize the music. You can play it from the CD player.
The article mentioned three criteria, and between the second and third there was the word and which means all three criteria must be met. The third criteria could also be argued against you.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I think that the problem with cracking copy protection or reverse engineering software is not in you doing it for yourself - after all, if you did it only for yourself, no one would ever find out about it and sue you.
It's the fact that almost 100% of the copy protection cracking/etc is done so the product can be freely distributed that has software/music/movie companies up in arms.
The article is quite clear that owning is very different from simply possessing a copy. Just because I have a copy of CIV IV does not necessarily mean I own the it under the definition used by the court here.
Ripping a game *is* essential if you need to use an emulator to play it.
Remind me never to play any games with you.
I apologize if you are being sarcastic, but you never know.
We don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse V.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
If you read the opinion you'll see it is limited to software programs, not music or movies.
Maybe movies on VHS, but DVDs aren't just the storage of a movie for linear playback. Many commercial DVDs contain some programmed scripts that control how the content is played back. It has the capability to set and read variables and perform conditional branching.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I cannot play it from CD on my iPod.
My Lexus's CD player will not play some DRM encrypted CDs.
My Linux system (and I own nothing but Linux & OS X systems) will not run the proprietary DRM rootkits that enable access to various disks.
For me, in several situations, I cannot use these CD players. I do not own a standalone CD player, except for the changer and 1-shot in my Lexus.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Second, there were obviously contractual issues going on here. The news article doesn't say when or where the programmer wrote the programs, or whether he was a consultant or regular employee, or whether they were "work for hire", or what other contracts they had. It doesn't sound like typical work for hire by an employee, because that would normally be owned by the employer and the case would have been a slam-dunk way earlier. So the results of this case are likely to only be useful if you've got a similar contractual agreement, and we don't know what that agreement is because the article doesn't go into that kind of detail.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Remember that this is a legal document we're reading. Each word has an extremely specific meaning that may or may not be the same as the colloquial meaning, and using a different one would have changed the legal meaning of the text.
Don't just RTFA--read the decision. In particular, note this conclusion on page 11:
This is the conclusion the court reached after some extensive discussion of what it means to "own" a copy of a piece of software. Key point: the court is ruling on a specific law referring to ownership of a copy of a program, NOT ownership of (or even access to) the source code. The court discusses at length what ownership means--and concludes with the paragraph above. In other words, if you...
...then you--as a matter of law--own a copy of the software.
How huge is this?
The immediate impact of this is to legalize reverse-engineering projects of custom software where the original coder can't or won't produce the source. The more interesting question is whether this legalizes the reverse-engineering of commercially-"licensed" software. On the one hand, this ruling makes it clear that--Microsoft's EULA to the contrary--I own several copies of Microsoft Office. On the other hand, the letter of the law, and the text of this decision, would seem to only permit me to use a disassembler to examine the code and fix bugs. Nothing--repeat--nothing in this decision would permit me to re-distribute that code. That's still very much an issue of copyright infringement.
So can I reverse-engineer my Sony rootkit CD?
Frankly, you shouldn't bother. You should take that rootkit CD back to Wal-Mart and tell them (in as loud a voice as you can muster) that you read "on the Internet that Sony's new CDs install a virus on your computer." But I digress....
Where this is interesting is that it appears to overrule the software industry's assertion that you and I are licenseholders, not owners. This may force a wholesale change in EULAs--where it may become extremely interesting is in the question of the U.S. legal doctrine of First Sale. This says that if you buy something, you own it. And if you own it, you can do anything you want with it--including sell it to somebody else. The licensee/owner distinction that software companies have asserted is intended to prevent the creation of a used software market. EULAs typically include language that prohibits you from selling the software "license" to anyone else without getting permission from the vendor first, or otherwise jumping through hoops. Various vendor "authentication" programs that tie serialized CDs to the MAC addresses of your computer essentially do the same thing--you have to get permission from Microsoft to subsequently "unlock" that software and install it on a different PC. Under the doctrine of First Sale, that's blatantly illegal--IF you own the software.
The bottom line:
You may reasonably conclude that software industry lawyers are going to be working overtime on this.
It's an interesting ruling.
From the first part(physically owning), it seems to refer to owning the media on which the source is on(the server at titlserv)
The second, I am assuming from the article, is implying that they changed the program to do maintance and fix some bugs so it would continue to work.
Here's my take on the third. 'In no other manner'. The program, from the article, was not altered to do something other than the original intent. It was altered to fix bugs. I dont think ripping/cracking/etc to a *nix would qualify because it changes the 'manner' of the program/whatever was to be run on a Windows box/DVD player/Whatever.
It seems to be a well reasoned decision, actually.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
License is a legal grant to "use" the program. Copyright is the legal protection to limit "distributing" the program (in original or derivative form). Ownership is the "bundle of rights" (First Sale doctrine, etc.) associated with legitimate physical posession of copies of the software.
Apples, calculators, and bears. In this case, the *license* was oral, the *copyright* was assumed to be with the programmer, but the *ownership* rights trumped the other two claims based on the types of changes made to the source code by the company.
Paying for the the development was not the only test for "ownership." Possession was the key, as was the oral license that allowed the company to "use" the program in perpetuity. The rights of ownership upheld by the court in this case uses the same tests as the next paragraph in the statute (the one that lets you make archive copies).
In other words, this is likely a very good precedent for anyone who purchases an expensive box of bits and then finds it riddled with bugs, incapable of essential functions, or incompatible with their current or future platforms.
This ruling is not out of line with the non-software world. Barring DMCA claims, car companies can't keep you from modding your car, and architects can't protect thier buildings from future modification or physical relocation. Posession still is 9/10ths of the law.
However, it remains to be seen how the courts will deal with DMCA-covered protections that prevent the user from exercising the very rights of ownership that this decision affirms.
Well, I'm constitutionally obligated to take exception to this, even though I understand where you're coming from.
The taking of a photograph involves selecting and controlling a host of variables with nearly infinite granularity. (I'll use a film-based solution since it cuts out Photoshop and such.) The Photographer chooses the film that he's using, which will affect things such as color balance and pallette, granularity, contrast, and sharpness. The ISO of the film also affects his choice of shutter speeds, which will limit the circumstances under which he will be able to capture the type of image he wants.
The Photographer chooses a shutter speed in order to either freeze motion or to show it through motion blur. Now, does he show the motion by letting the subject blur, or does he pan with the subject while taking the picture to keep the subject sharp and blur the background?
The photographer chooses an aperature, which directly affects the depth of field of the subject. Do you want everything tack-sharp, or do you wish to isolate one particular element by keeping that sharp and letting everything else fall out of focus? In doing this, the photographer has to keep in consideration the size of the depth of field, and the plane of focus.
The photographer chooses a focal length, the choice of which can vastly affect the composition of the picture, the DoF, and a number of other things, even the way a face appears.
The photographer chooses where to place the elements of the image within the frame, which can have a profound effect on the final feel of the image.
The photographer chooses whether or not to use filters to modify the light entering the lens, and these filters can have dramatic effects -- a simple polarizing filter can change the look of an image immensely.
The photographer chooses what lighting to use, and this includes the control of a vast number of variables. When using natural light, one's options are more limited, but this is still a major consideration. Do you sidelight your subjects? Frontlight them? Backlight them? Light them from above or below? Use a combination? Take the picture in shade or hard sun? It all depends. The control of lighting is one of the most frustrating and critical elements of a photographer's job.
Finally, the photographer chooses the exact moment to capture. Being off by 1/16 of a second can change an image from something remarkable to something blah.
Printing the image can be a simple thing, or an extremely complex one in the case of black and white fine-art prints done in a darkroom. That is another subject entirely, far too complex to get into, and it is entirely an art.
This is what you pay for in a good photographer, and why it's an art. It may look to you like the photographer is just clicking a button, but the vast number of choices that aggregate, including some which are entirely stylistic, are what makes it an art. The photographer processes all of this data, makes his selections, often in only a few seconds, frames the picture, and takes the picture. Well, this is all assuming that you're using a professional photographer and not someone clicking away on automatic mode or something.
The thing is, the photographer does just what you said -- he made a unique image. Technical skills will give you a decent photograph, but the ways that you choose to apply these -- there are literally an infinite number of ways to capture the same scene -- are what makes it an art.
Frankly, programming is less of an art in comparison, and more of the 'service industry' job you say photography is: all that is is the application of a series of algorythms in order to solve a defined problem. The photographer is using a set of algorythms, too, but these are much fuzzier, and there is almost never one (or even a couple of) "best" solution. And the development of a software application is practically -never- from scratch any more. Common libraries, programming tools, APIs, and such make the
OK, you may have a defense based on a right to adapt the menu scripts (.ifo), but that doesn't necessarily extend to the right to adapt the motion picture (.vob) that the menu scripts start and stop.
And what of DVDs where subtitle tracks contain buttons that branch to other video (follow the white rabbit)? And doesn't each VOB know where to go next once its end is reached? That's a goto.
And besides, isn't splitting hairs like that between programs and data like saying you can adapt the word processor but not to the extent where you can actually read any documents with it?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?