Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Means You Can't Delete Files On Your PC?
DragonHawk writes "According to Wired, John Stottlemire found a way to print duplicate coupons from Coupons.com by deleting some files and registry entires on his PC. Now he's being sued for a DMCA violation. He says, 'All I did was erase files or registry keys.' Says a lawyer: '[The DMCA] may cover this. I think it does give companies a lot of leverage and a lot of power.' So now the copyright cartels are saying that not only can we not copy things on our computers, but we can't delete things on our computers? Time to buy stock in Seagate."
yet another abuse of the DMCA and its way too much power to copyright holders that the general public won't notice or care about. It's enough to make me want to stop being an obssessive nerd.
Isn't there some fraud possibility? If the coupons have a limit (2 per person) that you agree to by checking a box or whatever?
This space available.
DMCA should not cover someone deleting their files or registry keys. But his excuse that "All I did was erase files or registry keys." sounds like a false pretense. He did it for the purpose of printing duplicate coupons, and that is fraud.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
Bureaucrat Ferris: "You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later . . . [and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted."
Rearden: "You seem to be pleased about it."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Don't I have good reason to be?"
Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?" Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them."
A guilty person will do anything to avoid guilt/prosecution, including accepting an ever-increasing set of restrictions on their remaining freedom. This is like open container laws, speed limits, and marijuana bans - useful when the State needs to enforce _something_, and pretty much ubiquitous, so they're guaranteed to have it over pretty much everyone.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It isn't against the DCMA simply to delete something. Had he only deleted registry entries, no one would know or care.
However, this was merely one step in copying coupons and intentionally violating the terms of the site. I'm not sure the DCMA applies to coupons, and the DCMA can be over-reaching, but I don't really have much sympathy for this guy. If you're trying to make a case against the DCMA, this seems like a poor example to choose. Surely there are better ones?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
From TFA, the guy was busted for "posting code and instructions that allow shoppers to circumvent copy protection on downloadable, printable coupons". Not exactly busted for simply "deleting some files" eh?
if you just write over the file multiple times with random characters :)
If I remove DRM from a file on my computer such as a MP3 I'm also breaching the DMCA, this isn't very different. Can we have less knee jerk reactions from slashdot over anything that remotely looks like we can complain about the DMCA? Articles like this just make us look bad and uninformed.
1) Export registry
2) Install software
3) Export registry
4) diff
5) Profit!
That said, the mere erasure of files, etc is likely not illegal by itself.
However . . .
The manipulation of computer info to cheat the system is also mere manipulation of numbers, etc. This is not banning or regulating the use of arithmetic or mathematics. These are merely means to an end. It is a strawman argument.
Which brings us to a much more valuable question
Was the cheating of the system an honest and ethical act? or was the original coupon a crime of such a nature that stealing from criminals can be justified as honest and ethical act?
He got caught trying to cheat the system, and is trying to come up with an excuse that the mere manipulations of information were entirely innocent.
I doubt they were entirely random alterations. They were performed with a certain intent. Possibly a criminal intent.
Effective arguments have been made against the DCMA. They should no be contaminated with strawmen invented for less then honest ends.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Now I'm not a fan of the DMCA, but this seems like another case of computer geeks missing the forest for the trees. However you end up circumventing the DCMA, it's going to come down to a set of simple, technical, legal steps. Similarly, a gun is fired using a set of simple, technical, legal steps. Whether these steps constitute a legal or illegal actions depends on situation and intent. If I shoot somebody, frankly it doesn't matter how legal it is for me to retract my index finger half an inch. And, as the law is written, if you're circumventing the DCMA, it really doesn't matter how legal it is to delete a file on your computer.
What did he copy? As far as I understood, he 1) deleted files that allowed him to 2) produce coupons that were *different* from any other coupons (for the SW itself guarantees that they are unique). He did not copy anything whatsoever by 1) or 2).
You can argue that printing funny money with serial numbers different from that of any note in circulation is still a crime, even if you didn't copy the money exactly - and you are right. But he did not print funny money, he printed genuine real money on the one and only official Treasury printer. He found a way to trick the software to print more coupons that he was eligible for. Like if you can trick (kick) a coke machine to give you two bottles for the price of one.
It is still a crime. However, I don't think it is copyright violation. He got more than what he paid for, but he did not copy anyting.
Actually, Western Digital is significantly more undervalued as a stock than Seagate right now. Not a knock on Seagate; just pointing it out as a value investor.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
They are arguing that it is the intent here that matters. DMCA makes a lot of (otherwise legal) activities illegal if they are done with intent to violate copyright. IANAL
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
TFA belongs in the pile with "Republicans fail to stop Hurricane Katrina, poor folks' houses destroyed!"
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If you're trying to make a case against the DCMA, this seems like a poor example to choose. Surely there are better ones?
No, this is an excellent case to show why the DMCA is flawed. It rewards companies for using pathetic security measures. The policy rationale for the DMCA is that content providers will be unwilling to create or sell digital stuff without some type of legal protection because digital technology allows for such easy reproduction. Therefore, to create an incentive, the law allows creators who make some effective attempt to protect their works to have an additional right to sue for such violations. That's the same basic incentive behind most IP laws.
However, the courts have interpreted "effective" to mean that if creators take minimal attempts to protect their work, they get added legal protections. The bar has been set so low that there is no incentive for producers to engage in real, effective self-help measures. Certainly, a cat and mouse game exists between people who want to steal and content providers. But if the law creates a disincentive for companies to do help themselves, then the law harms both content providers and consumers.
A simple registry entry is NOT an effective copy protection measure, and the iron hand of justice should let the company suffer the consequences of doing near nothing to protect themselves.
Where exactly does circumvention of copy protection begin and end? If a person had deleted the data but not printed more coupons, would it still be circumventing copy protection?
What if they had to format the filesystem?
Or for that matter, what if he had bought a new computer? Can we now not buy things because it circumvents copyright, albeit inefficiently and in an extremely costly manner?
And yes, I realize he actually got busted for posting instructions for circumvention, even providing software that does it, but they probably are charging him with the greatest charge they believe they can get a conviction for, or possibly planning to settle out of court, cause this does sound at least a little bit invasive even for the DMCA.
In fact, lets take this a step further and make it more like what the guy did. I know I'll probably get troll flagged for this, but this is a matter of morals now.
Anyone wanting free unlimited coupons from Coupons.Com can do so by buying a new computer for every set of coupons they create.
There, I just told you how to circumvent it. Thereby violating the DMCA, for all of slashdot (that reads this far down) to see. Don't like it? Then sue me.
No. It means you can't be a dick.
Start VM, snapshot system, print ticket, reload snapshot, print ticket, repeat. (Cough, no files need to be deleted)
I work at wired and right now some of our editors are putting together a story about an Arizona State University student being sued by Random House for covering his OWN PAPER with ink! Appearantly these jerks now think that their copyrights should extend to the very paper in your printer. /just kidding //you insensative clod.
"All i did was apply a little ink to some of my paper, is that a crime now too?" says some jackass. Clearly the book companies need a lesson on copyright violation.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
Use virtual PC, load windows on it, make backup of the vhd file. Then go to site, download coupons, print them, then exit your VPC, start a new VPC, rinse and re-pete.
Or tell your print server to print multiple copies of your jobs, print coupons, profit.
Absolutely simple as friggin pie, or even install a print to PDF driver from sourceforge, print and save to file, open in adobe [print as many as you like, DUH!!!
They gonna put me away too?
Is _THAT_ suddenly a DMCA violation as well?
Then wouldn't it also be illegal to sell any tool that enables one to do such? Like Windows itself?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Can't we sue DragonHawk for fraud then?
What if I got a coupon first using a virtual machine, then got a second one by using my actual host? What do they do then? Sure it seems like he did it deliberately, but what if I accidentally get a coupon from a guest OS, then the host OS thinking that I accidentally threw out the first coupon, but then use it? I can see that this kind of thing could happen on accident. I've never used coupons.com, and have no intention of going there and risk random crap getting installed on my computer.
I wonder if this makes checkpointing in VMware a DMCA circumvention measure as well?
-jeff
There was no key (no lock).
Mere files and registry entries don't represent an effective encryption algorithm.
So he didn't bypass any 'security measures'.
What else comes next?
They write passwords plaintext in dont_read_me.txt ???
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Ever stop to think
Submitters should more accurately reflect the content of their stories rather than creating a misleading teaser that doesn't represent the core issue being debated here.
If the courts are going to allow the DMCA to be stretched far enough to cover such drivel then let's sue all the websites that insist on Internet Explorer only and all service companies such as the coupon company from the article for not providing software for something besides Windows for discrimination. The discrimination lawsuit makes more sense then making it against the law for someone to delete files from their computer.
If this nonsense holds up in court, does that mean malware detectors and removers as well as Anti-virus companies can be prosecuted for DMCA violations? AD blockers will be violations too? Oh and you have to save all that spam you receive, can't divert it with spam blockers or delete it without reading it, plus retain whatever garbage it dumps on your computer?
Coupons are like rebates in that they are mostly bogus excuses to raise the prices on items. Hasn't been that long since grocery stores only had a margin of about a penny per can on most canned goods, now they offer double and triple coupons on a regular basis as well as allowing you to purchase with a credit card, which they wouldn't do at one time because the credit card company would make more on the transaction then they did.
"No, this is an excellent case to show why the DMCA is flawed. It rewards companies for using pathetic security measures. "
So what isn't a pathetic security measure, and were can the RIAA/MPAA get it?
"The policy rationale for the DMCA is that content providers will be unwilling to create or sell digital stuff without some type of legal protection because digital technology allows for such easy reproduction. Therefore, to create an incentive, the law allows creators who make some effective attempt to protect their works to have an additional right to sue for such violations. That's the same basic incentive behind most IP laws."
OK, and how is copying more coupons than your entitled to outside the above?
"Certainly, a cat and mouse game exists between people who want to steal and content providers. But if the law creates a disincentive for companies to do help themselves, then the law harms both content providers and consumers."
Oh I got to hear this. How so?
"A simple registry entry is NOT an effective copy protection measure, and the iron hand of justice should let the company suffer the consequences of doing near nothing to protect themselves."
You may want to make a mental note who's saying what in the story.
my registy entires, I would probably have to call Setec Astronomy to help fix it...
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
MS System Restore also deletes entries from your registry. Obviously, this violates the DMCA.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
"DMCA Means You Can't Delete Files On Your PC?"
/., I expect to NOT see it on /.
I expect to see that kind of amateur, fact evading, OMYGOD hair-on-fire hysteria from WIRED. I don't just not expect to see it on
STOP IT. Use some sense and have a little editorial integrity, will you? If this is the result of lack of submissions, consider whether perhaps having fewer stories is not less damaging to your reputation than having this sort of asinine crap. I hope the reason this article was used was that you knew it'd result in a lot of sparks and smoke in the discussion, because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate. If it is, it's still not good enough.
We really, really need the ability to mod parent articles.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
I know most of us here generally use operating systems that do not require regular re-installation. However, in the Windows world, an annual (or more frequent) re-install is par for the course. If the DMCA requires that certain registry entries and files be kept, this would presumably make such re-installation illegal. Does anyone here on /. have a good method for identifying if protected files and/or registry entries exist on a machine? Does the DMCA basically mean that, in the event of virus or other malware infestation, you must buy a new computer as reformatting the old one is not permitted? Do the standard TCO calculations for Windows machines take this into account?
The Tao of Cracking
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
What if someone made a virus that deleted the said files & registry entries and it went wild? Would anyone that got the virus be sued if they got extra coupons? Especially if the virus automatically ran the software to print more?
At least yet no one is sued if their computer is used as a part of ddos attack due to having some virus/trojan/worm on their comp.
Sounds like the people over at coupons.com don't know how to properly implement such a system that can keep track of "coupons" issued to subscribers. By allowing the client to distribute its own coupons, they introduced a design flaw. The server should distribute the keys. They should learn a lesson, fix their broken-ware and move on. Don't shoot the messenger.
We already know that it's illegal to use a soldering iron if you're building a cable descrambler box. It's also illegal to use a copying machine if you're using it to duplicate $20 bills.
It's not that it's a DMCA violation to delete files. it's a DMCA violation to circumvent copyright protection systems, doesn't matter what you do to circumvent it. (yea I know DMCA is BS, but it's law now and tested in court)
I think if there was a switch inside your DVD player to enable it to duplicate copyprotected DVDs, it would be a DMCA violation to publish information on how to find and flip that switch. Even though the design of such a security system is stupid and trivial to crack. The DCMA seems vague enough that it does not distinguish between easy and hard to break protection.
Of course if you make it too easy even the DMCA is not going to have the power to shut down the flow of information.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
this has nothing to do with the deletetion of files in general.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Law Means You Can't Use a Photocopier?
According to Wired, John Doe found a way to print duplicate twenty dollar bills from his bank by using a photocopier. Now he's being sued for a counterfeiting violation. He says, 'All I did was xerox some paper.' Says a lawyer: '[The law] may cover this. I think it does give banks a lot of leverage and a lot of power.' So now the banking cartels are saying that not only can we not make our own money, but we can't copy theirs on our own photocopies? Time to buy stock in gold.
I saw Rage against the Machine, and Zack De La Rocha spent time lecturing the audience about how this is our time, we have power, we need to protest against the government and use our freedom of speech and our vote to act.
When are we as a group going to do something about this?
I mean, I am not a communist or left-wing person at all. But seriously, where are the protests? Where are the protests against the Iraq war, in the style of the 1960s? Where are the protests against the DMCA? Are we as a generation ever going to do anything about this?
Rage has this one song "Wake Up" where he spends the last minute or two screaming "WAKE UP! WAKE UP!" He's talking to us. When are we going to DO SOMETHING about this?
(Don't look at me for the answer, I'll be sitting here surfing the web until someone comes up with a good one.)
Legislature: "From now on, it shall be illegal to run somebody over with your car."
Slashdot: "OMG! Did you see this new law? It will prevent us from driving our cars!"
Sane person: "Um, no. You can drive your car all you want, you just can't drive it over somebody."
Slashdot: "OMG OMG OMG! We can't drive our cars! Freedom is dead! America is now officially a totalitarian state! There is no superlative too hyperbolic to describe this fascist Nazi situation!"
Give me a very large break, with a side order of fries. "DMCA Means You Can't Delite Files On Your PC?" Um, no... DMCA means you can't delete files (or create files, or modify files, or take a nice long piss all over your files) with the intention and effect of circumventing a mechanism designed to protect copyrighted content. Poor you. Boo hoo hoo. Man, those people living behind the Iron Curtain thought they knew what oppression was... but at least they never had to undergo the horror of being legally forbidden to steal coupons!
IANAL, but I think you are right for the wrong reason :-).
The basic problem is this:
Yes, there is a lock, but the DMCA does not specify encryption, just some technological measure that, in effect, controls access to the system. "Effectively controls" means "in effect controls."
For example, if I release an access control measure that has a bug in it which causes it to stop controlling access the third tuesday after it is installed, then one would think that once the bug hits, that accessign the work would not be a problem. After all the effect of controlling access no longer happens.
I would similarly argue that if washing my hands after using the restroom interfered with a technological access control, that using the work after washing my hands would not constitute a violation either because the process is both routine and not intended to circumvent. I would argue that in this case the measure does not effectively control access because it fails to handle many reasonably common conditions without granting unauthorized access. Drawing the line otherwise to protect such obviously broken access control measures would allow content writers to release known-defective access control measures to the public with the direct intent of making arbitrary lawsuits easier (You *never* used this product with wet hands?).
The question is whether this system was really designed such that it effectively controls access to the system under sufficiently broad conditions that might justify this condition and whether there are commonplace and unrelated conditions which effectively circumvent the measure. I would argue that there are in this case. There are many higher-end Windows users who do regularly reformat their hard drives. This is done without intent to print additional coupons but nonetheless it temporarily defeats the access control measure. Furthermore, industry-standard recommendations for recovering from security incidents *mandates* taking measures that would as a side effect temporarily defeat the access control measure.
Therefore it is hard to see how these things "effectively control" access to a work. In fact they do *not* have the effect of controlling access in ways which are not circumvented by standard maintenance procedures for certain types of problems (procedures which have long been used by some Windows users as routine measures to prevent performance problems).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Copyright holders, that is. If they include weak copyright protection, then they deserve what they get for writing such lame, easily-circumvented code. If they include strong copyright protection, they're a bunch of DRMing bastards who are preventing you from exercising your apparently God-given right to do what you want with the content you "bought". Tell me, is there any way that copyright holders can please you (*) other than by bending over and letting you rape away to your heart's content?
(*) "You" in the plural here, referring to the extremely vocally whiny Slashdot anti-DMCA brigades. I don't know if you, personally, fall into this category... but blaming coupons.com for not including enough DRM makes me wonder.
+1 Wishful thinking with no connection to reality
Judge: "So, with your program you made it possible to print unlimited coupons"
John Stottlemire: "Yes your honor"
Judge: "And what coupons did you print?"
John: "$5 and $10 coupons, your honor"
Judge: "Double-you-tee-eff? You idiot! Do you know what inkjet cartridges cost nowadays!? IT COSTS AT LEAST $20 TO PRINT ONE OF THOSE COUPONS!"
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
If you read the DMCA, from what I understand it's not illegal to circumvent DRM for non-infringing use (backups of DVD's, etc.). As far as I can tell, it is illegal to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" some thing (program, device, etc.) or some way (method, service etc.) that enables someone to circumvent DRM.
To summarize: it's not illegal to actually do the circumvention for fair use, but it is illegal to make available a way for someone to do so. I'm not a lawyer, but that's what I got from actually reading the law itself.
So it sounds like this guy is in trouble for "offer[ing] to the public" some way to get the coupons in some infringing way.
Just run the OS in a VMware instance. Print, or whatever, your stuff, revert to earlier snapshot. Simple, easy, reliable. Or one can use the same nonpersistent disk as one uses for browsing the web with Windows and IE.
Will "they" go after the vmware people next?
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
After all, almost all Shareware/Timebombed Demo's need to write a file or registry entry, so they can tell when the trial period has expired. Deleting such entries is obviously a circumvention of said protection mechanisms.
Where do I contribute to his Defense Fund! This is crap! It must be fought at all cost. We cannot allow corporations (or any entity for that matter) have this kind of control over our personal computing resources (or otherwise). If stuff like this continues to become the norm, then, perhaps it is time for a revolution.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
People... HELLO!!! Wake up...
Even if these were $100 coupons... and they're not... why would you bring lawyers to bear? Think! This has less than nothing to do with coupons. The real infraction here was either fraud, or some flavor of breach of contractual agreement... tell me, why are they pursuing DMCA? Every change time you use the club it get's a little bigger, a little more powerful.
Wield it enough, build a big enough body of law around the thing, pay of enough politicians, to make sure the rights guys end up judges so your decisions go the way you want, and after a while you have the bastard child of a Swiss army knife and a nuke. You want to get midieval on anybody's ass, just whack them with that big fat DMCA ugly stick.
This is just more business as usual, folks. When Congress litterally let the pharma lobby, have the entire house to themselves, so they could write the Medicare laws that are today reaming every American taxpayer whose interest was being managed? Face it folks, John Q is an endagered species... and the Secretary of the Interior don't protect those any more... were I you, I'd be donnin body armor, and some bullet proof skivvies... y'all are open season.
"Do not forget that slashdot is a for-profit business."
Don't forget this crowd uses adblock. Anyway just look at how well comment moderation works. It'll work wonders with stories.
Is the DMCA ever used for anything but propping up broken business models with riduculous lawsuits?
Relying on files stored on a user's computer to indicate that an action has already been carried out is just christian, and deserves to be laughed out of court. It's like sticking a sticker on somebody's clothes to prove that they have already had a free sample of ice cream, then complaining when they show up an hour later sans sticker.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"While I hate coupons I've found that The Kroger Co... aka Fred Meyers and QFC are the least restrictive on coupons. Not only do they accept photocopies of their store adverts, but they don't even require the physical coupon."
Well I suspect "Mr Fraud" has ruined another barrel of apples. Kroger doesn't take internet coupons around here.
Aren't free newspapers full of coupons common in the US? The last time I visited your quaint little country I picked up magazines at rest stops that had pages of offers for hotels and restaurants, which came in handy as a way of touring on a budget. I assume there was some small print that said 'good for one night's stay only' or similar for each hotel, but there was nothing to stop me taking a bundle of those papers and using coupons wherever I wanted to. I would have doubled in weight and developed an aversion to garden burgers but in the end the retailers have their bit of promotion and the magazine publisher has their money. Printing these coupons online is exactly the same. If there is some requirement for exclusivity then the software provider should have tried to employ better techniques to prevent it. Instead, they are attempting to cover up their shortcomings by employing the DMCA, which is no different from companies employing it to prevent disclosure of bugs or security issues, and it would probably be cheaper to fix the software than to go through a costly legal process. Therefore in part, the suit is designed to save face. It's the CueCat all over again without the hardware, and is yet another weapon for software manufacturers and distributors to use against people who have the temerity to use software in a way that it wasn't supposed to be used, but that the makers and distributors were too lazy or cheap to prevent against.
Oh please. Open container laws have nothing to do with public safety.
You don't want the drivers to be drinking? That's what DUI laws are for.
You don't want the passengers drinking? Why? WTF does that have to do with public safety?
I am absolutely against driving under the influence, but open container laws are all about giving the police an excuse to search a vehicle without probable cause.
The federal highway fund linkage is just a way of (illegally, IMHO) forcing Federal authority over the States. The citizens of the states paid the taxes, but the benefits of those taxes don't go to the citizens unless the states give up their constitutionally-guaranteed sovereignty.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
>>> Just increase the "number of copies" value in the print dialog and off you go.
>> From TFA
>> Each printed coupon has its own unique serial code.
>> So, they really don't care (that much) if you print x copies of the one coupon,
>> but you aren't supposed to get more than n (= 2) coupons of each type.
The same principle applies for credit card numbers. Just because you have the LUHN-10 algorithm which allows you to generate credit card numbers, that doesn't mean you'll have unlimited credit, because there is an additional layer of security: credit card numbers are verified against legal, registered numbers.
But these people designed their software in such a poor way that every re-install would generate a brand new set of serial numbers, *all of which would be considered valid*. This is where the problem is- it is just a big gaping security hole. And they're trying to blame their poor performance on a (admittedly smart-ass) user. If said software company would have been a bank, it would be blamed and not the customer.
If a bank would rely on just the checksum of credit card numbers to verify validity, rather than verifying said number against officially issued numbers, credit card fraud would soar. Of course fraud is illegal, but that doesn't mean that the bank has no responsibility to try to prevent it. The software company in question here has not taken precisely that responsibility, and they're trying to blame the user- but in reality both are wrong.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Fuck em. I'll delete any goddamm files I want on my computer.
You are just now noticing this? Slashdot has gone steadily downhill in the quality of postings. We used to complain about the editors, now it's just the unwashed masses using Firehose. If the editors would actually, you know, perform actual editorial duties then things would probably improve.
Its kind of ironic you mention a text file with words "do not delete" in it...if you have a protected pdf ebook, print it to a file using a post script printer driver and open the resulting ps file with a text editor. Do a quick search for the text "Digital Copyright Act of 1998"
No, no typo. that's really meant to spell "killed". Not "saved". The reason for it are dead simple.
The DMCA allows those that want to protect their IP to let down their guard. It allows them to implement faulty and plainly useless protection, simply because circumventing it is illegal anyway under the DMCA.
This is all nice and fluffy as long as the infringement is done in the US. Now, let's go to Taiwan. Or some other country that doesn't care about the Berne Convention. And suddenly, that "protection" is meaningless. Worse, instead of having domestic "hackers" who would try and test that security first, those meaningless "protections" get blown to pieces in nanoseconds.
And that's a security risk if there ever was one. Worse, it's a threat to the national economy. Imagine this would've been an international PR stunt instead of a local one. Where you give your trade partners abroad (let's say Taiwan, or make it China) some vouchers. They don't give a rat's rear about the DMCA. And they can multiply them big style.
It would be quite unlikely that such a case arises. Granted. But how about contracts? Can you be certain that they can't be forged if you cannot test your defenses nationally before trying them internationally? With the DMCA, you cannot. Anyone who would break your defensive protection would invariably be sued. So nobody does it, instead they sell their knowledge abroad where it can be employed.
If there ever was a threat to IP, or the US economy, it's in the DMCA and similar laws that outlaw testing protection mechanisms.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've now set up my system to re-install Windows every time I boot into Windows. It just copies a pre-installed image of Windows into the Windows C: partition where the registry is. The D: partition has all the Windows data. So does that make me a violator of the DMCA?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There, you can print a zillion coupons now !!
Arrest me, I'm spreading anti DMCA tools !!
yawn.. silly americans
The real story here is why would a company want someone to print less coupons if they are buying more products? They are turing away customers here. Duh!
freak3dot
"Intent" is an element of criminal law. It is called "mens rea."
Copyright infringement in this case resulted resulted in a civil lawsuit, and there is no requirement of mens rea or "evil motive" in such a civil lawsuit (although some civil statutes do include it, particularly when awarding punitive damages).
To those in power, this is how those outside are viewed: Everyone is a criminal; everyrthing is a weapon. The only thing that is in their way is the judiciary. Voir dire is the process of weeding out the non-rubberstampers. That is why I sound like a looped soundbyte (who here knows what a 'broken record' is anymore): If he/she has a stake in the system; he/she has no place on a jury.
If voting changed things it would be illegal.
Jury nullification changes things because people have been jailed for using it.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
So we can add "recipes.com" to the list of corporations who will sue their users if they don't like what you're doing? Does anybody have a recent copy of the list?
I'm adding this place to the list of companies to stay away from. I'm pretty sure fifty cents off a bag of flour or whatever is not worth it. Even if you manage to print off two copies.
It's only moving some tiny plastic wheels.
Does this mean ./ is violating the DCMA when posts a dup story???
What kind of a goofy thing is this - has this company never heard of Print to PDF / Print to PS?
I can make a fake HP Laserjet that saves to a file and print to that, then print 1000 copies of these coupons if I want.
If it were held up to be true, then it also could be legally tested and resulted in you not being allowed to remove any and all spyware or malware, no matter who put it there.
:-)
Then the next logical step is a sanctioned operating system where the Government decides what you can have and how you will use it.
See;... I told you it was flame bait!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Thus proving the copy protection mechanism is ineffective.
There are a lot of printers out there that will do a repeat print of the last print job. I have a Brother color printer and it will do that. If I reprint one of those coupons using that, it that illegal as well? I'm not circumventing anything. I'm simply using the built in features of my printer.
What about if I print the coupon to PDF and then print multiple copies on my printer? Again, I'm not circumventing anything. I'm just using built in features of my computer.
There have to be at least a dozen other ways of doing this that are even easier that what this guy did. I don't think the coupon copyright-holder really could have any true expectation that their restriction of 1 coupon per customer could be enforced anyway. So why do the put it on the internet? And would a court uphold their claim given that there should have been no expectation that they could enforce their restriction?
These guys are stretching it a bit even for fraud. Perhaps they aren't very well informed about internet security, etc., but it's a little naive to assume that they can easily keep people from printing more than 1 coupon. Even if you don't misuse their software.
Where is it?
If I am using Ubuntu Feisty Faun, would the the DMCA even be applied here? Of course there is always the legal question of, "Who is responsible for keeping the Books of a Business?"
If the software effectively controlled access, he couldn't circumvent it. If it's not effective, the section of the DMCA does not apply.
If anyone cared to read the article they would realize that he is not being sued because he printed off multiple copies of a coupon. He is being sued because he posted code and instructions on the internet for how to do it. Sure, suing one guy because he printed off 2 coupons instead of 1 is a little bit absurd, but this guy gave the whole world the ability to to print off as many coupons as they want. That is definitely worth suing over and he is definitely guilty!
ROT13 was not an effective copy protection measure anyway, and look how that turned out.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
The stupid coupon site used simple procedures to "ensure" that coupons wouldn't be duplicated. They were stupid, they were shortsighted, and they got screwed.
Tough.
What happens if you use a virtual OS session which resets to the same status each morning?
This technology is monumentally stupid, and there's no way that he'll be "convicted", assuming he has the funding (EFF?) to go to court.
Otherwise, he just has to settle to try and save his finances.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
This really has little to nothing to do with the DMCA. What's happening is that some clown decided to try and scam a malware company and is now having the book thrown at him. Applying DMCA to the case is obviously just a prosecutorial tactic, i.e. the "shotgun" approach. The idea is that if you charge this guy with 75 different offenses at least ONE of them is gonna stick. What this is NOT is some Orwellian nightmare where the FBI will arrest you and torture your cats if you uninstall Half-Life. Seriously, the DMCA stinks, but you're better off attacking it using real examples of its abuse rather than going in to hysterics whenever it's mentioned. P.S. However, I did hear about a case in D.C. where a guy dropped his iPod while a song was playing and then got tasered by a mounted cop. True story. RIAA.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
How long before spyware & virus start using the DMCA to keep you from removing them also this website seems like it installs software that is / acts like spyware like and if you remove it does that now let you start printing with no limit? If that is the case then being sued for removing soft that messes up your system will make a lot techs risk braking the law for removing carp from people pc's.
... Because I actually go out of my way to find and delete DMCA drivers/software on my computer.
:)
It's like a game, see how many times I can give them a metaphorical slap in the face in any given week.
Internet: Serious Business
The problem here is that everyone involved is being dishonest about the intent and nature of their actions.
The company raising the suit is leveraging copyright law for a non-copyright issue. I haven't seen the coupon in question, but everyone involved knows that it isn't being distributed as art. It's being distributed as a functional item, and the company's beef is replication of its function outside their intent. That's not copyright violation.
How about this: If I printed out 100 copies of their coupon, frame them, and hang them on my walls, would they sue me for copyright violation? (Would they have if the question were asked before they tried to shoehorn their complaint into copyright law?) I bet they wouldn't.
And on the other side, this pretend-shock that "now the DMCA says I can't delete stuff?" Get real. Although the wrong law is being applied, you knew when you circumvented the x-coupons-per-customer mechanism that you were stealing coupons. Most crimes are made up of acts that are not, outside their context, illegal. "Assault? All I did was swing my arms around a bit. What, the law says I can't exercise now?"
Everyone involved needs to grow up.
I don't what everyone is getting so upset about. PC Owners, and I emphasize that term, have every right to remove any type of installed material off of their own computers. I very seriously doubt that this case will get very far and the courts will see that this is not a case of DMCA. If this company were serious about a workaround regarding their coupons, they should have placed serial numbers on each coupon so that when a coupon is used it's rendered unusable. Best Buy does this all of the time with their numbered Best Buy Reward Zone certificates.
...
The Judge, whoever presides over this case, is going to dismiss this case because it is not a DMCA violation. If they think it is, then they need to stop installing any type of information regarding their certificates on anyone's PC. That institutes Malware, Spyware, Adware or whatnot
Meh. It will get deleted anyway. You should have put DMCA in your sig.
Of Code And Men
rm -rf /
eat that DMCA
Oh crap,
$@)$^_)! NO_CARRIER
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Ironically, it appears the coupon company is using the DMCA for its intended (and unstated) purpose: to control access. I can understand them wanting to control the number of coupons released, but they should be keeping track on their computers, not the consumers'. For example, they could keep track of the coupons downloaded to each IP address, or (at the consumer's request) send the coupons via e-mail and track them that way. That would be essentially the same as controlling the number of coupons sent via snail mail to specific addresses.
[Disclaimer: IANAL.]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Thanks buddy. Hope it was worth it to you.
...don't put open containers in the passenger compartment of your car.
paintball
"I didn't write a virus, I just happened to arrange some letters, numbers and symbols into patterns and place those patterns onto the Internet! It's just like sending an email!"
"I didn't commit perjury, I just started speaking English sentences! The government wants to outlaw English!"
"I'm not a spammer, I just connected to a SMTP server and sent it some standard commands. It's not *my* fault the mail server sent out 3,000 emails a second..."
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
What if I trust this software only enough to run it in a Virtual Machine?... and I run it more than once?
For starters, nearly all coupons contain company and product logos, which I realize are trademarks, but none the less are protected.
And then you get into the coupon design, which is done by a creative department. The usual rule of thumb is that an artist's output is generally copyrightable.
So while it seems silly that a coupon could enjoy any type of copyright protection (obviously a mere coupon code would never be copyrightable), I can't jump to that conclusion that the layout, as done by the artist, could never qualify for copyright protection.
I did some quick looking around at online printable coupons, and they all seem to assert copyright protection. Take a look at this coupon. You can see the copyright statement at the bottom, and just looking at the coupon, it's obvious that it's a creative work, and as such, should enjoy copyright protection.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
You can see the copyright statement on the coupon, and I see no reason that it shouldn't enjoy copyright protection. It's obviously a creative work.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
with some encryption scheme, ad then claim anyone who circumvents it is violating the DCMA and sue. Geez, if coupons.com was smart at all, they'd be storing the data on THEIR servers, not your computer!
It seems like if this is upheld not only would it mean that one can not delete files from one's PC but that there would be other issues at stake.
For example, I know that in many network environments at colleges and universities its common that every time a computer is rebooted its changed back to a default image to remove any spy ware, viruses, or just programs that users may have installed on the computers while they were using the computer.
Additionally, this would mean that if I format and reinstall my registry is cleared... so that could become a DMCA violation.
Editing a registry entry is not copyright circumvention, nor is reinstalling or restoring to an image. If they want to limit the number of coupons that someone prints out they can tie the coupons to the individual's real name verified by a credit card and require an account log-in. It might turn some people off to the service, but it is a much better way then using the registry to assign a unique identifier to individuals. If they decide not to do this because they want to distribute more coupons that is risk they take due to doing business in an unsecured manner.
He just needs an EULA on his program:
"By downloading this program you take full responsibility for the Bad Things that might happen to the author of this software. You assume liability shared and in whole for any damages, lawsuits, or jail time resulting from the creation of this software.
You are aware of the DMCA stupidity and agree that you know what this program does and are capable of the circumvention on your own without assistance. By clicking yes below you understand that you are adding and additional byte to the program that completes the code and makes this function as a circumvention tool. Without the additional byte required, this program will not provide circumvention of anything including your password protected pron"
There...then he can point to his EULA and give 'em the finger. His circumvention doesn't work without an extra byte which is inserted by the end user clicking OK.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Since each coupon is printed with an individual ID, printing to a file then just copying it doesn't work. The information has to actually go back to coupons.com to be activated. Aren't there better ways of ensuring one coupon per person? Like requiring you to sign up with an e-mail address which, in combination with your MAC address, would singularly identify you (until you changed your network card and email address) or something? You wouldn't need windows-proprietary software to print coupons out then. Honestly, they just have a bad setup.
--Edward Dassmesser
qemu -snapshot -hda win2k.qcow -boot c
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Can I delete cookies? Or clear my cache?
Let's say I make a site that can only be "accessed once". And my cutting edge technology to insure that the site is only viewable once is to use browser cookies.
Would the clearing of my cookies result in a violation of the DMCA?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Here's the line that hits the DMCA:
In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, last month, Coupons Inc. accuses Stottlemire of creating and giving away a program that erases the unique identifier, allowing consumers to repeatedly download and print as many copies of a particular coupon as they want.
So no, it's not just "deleting a registry key" or "uninstalling software." It's writing a program deliberately targeted at a particular registry key, belonging to a particular piece of software, for the particular intent of circumventing the controls on said software. Ergo, it wouldn't count if you deleted the key without printing more coupons. It probably wouldn't even have become an issue if he had been deleting his own keys, or at least it would have been an issue of breach-of-contract rather than one of circumvention. However, since he built a program specifically targeted at circumventing the ID system unique to the Coupons Inc's software, then yes, that particular combination of events is a violation.
So to recap:
a) Deleting a registry key is not bad. Deleting a specific registry key of this program is bad... when in combination of
b) Doing so to breach the integrity of the program. Not to remove the software, but use it in a way that breaches the attached contract, thus
c) Breaking any copyright attached to the software itself, not necessarily the coupons in question. Roundabout... but the last part is of course
c) Distributing the crack to others, allowing them to similarly abuse the software.
Why is it that slashdot insists on attacking things components, rather than a view of the overall picture. Do you think that somebody could cite this case a precedent?
Rinse and repeat. Hence, the VM is your "circumvention" mechanism.
The DMCA exists to protect lousy, ineffective, DRM against circumvention. Good DRM doesn't need legal protection to be effective.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Use Deep Freeze. http://www.deepfreezeusa.com/ - it makes all changes to the "frozen" drive be temporary til you reboot. If you aren't manually deleting things and it is, you can then blame the software... Deep Freeze has been in several 2600 Magazine Articles for a lot of reasons... it's a great little sandbox to play in... System Admins at colleges and high schools use it to keep their main os from being corrupted by users - users find ways around it though.
In theory, Deep Freeze also can let you reinstall a time limited demo software thousands of times to the frozen C: drive or similar places so long as main OS is on C:... what that means is system admins by using Deep Freeze are really sort of just asking people to pirate in a roundabout way... it's a wonder RIAA and/or BSA hasn't chased down all users of Deep Freeze yet. Of course, they won't since it'll make schools look bad, and show the RIAA and BSA's true faces....
And if you have to game the system to gain your rights, who is at fault here?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Reading TFA the implication is that other people can put files and registry entries onto your computer AND REQUIRE YOU TO KEEP THEM THERE AND INTACT. And they don't even have to tell you this. This is wrong on so many levels that the case against this guy should be thrown out of court immediately, and him receive all his legal fees post haste!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That a coupon is a copyrightable work with some originality. I don't think that will fly. If the coupon is not a work protected under the act, then there is no prohibition against cirumventing. Also, the word circumventing implies actions taken with intent to get around the protection. If I delete a 10 GB file to free up space on my HD and it turns out that file was used by my DVD burning software as a database of disks I'm not allowed to copy, am I guilty of circumventing?
We are the 198 proof..
Before saying this guy committed fraud or is in violation of the DMCA, has anyone asked him for his insight? He is the only one that knows the whole story isn't he?
I know for me this sort of backlash is not hypothetical and may cause some real, actual problems in my own business. The TPM mechanism I've been developing for 2 years works by disabling the printer device after the revenue source has printed a coupon. It therefore provides an effective technological means of preventing the revenue source from printing any more coupons through that printer, aka making unauthorized copies. I am expecting to be able to shortly sell this TPM to companies like Coupons, Inc. for reasons I can't disclose.
Now clearly some villainous creep might distribute instructions on the internet for re-enabling the printer and thus circumvent my TPM. This is the nightmare scenario feared by all TPM manufacturers!
I'm sure a horde of Slashdot assholes will come on here and try to use their third grade English to insinuate that my TPM is utter bullshit. They said it about the TPMs that were defeatable by a black marker or a pressing the shift key, FFS. Sure, maybe some revenue sources will have an unreasonable desire to use their printers again after printing a coupon but — and this is key to the whole deal — it may be legal to move your index finger 1.27cm, but it is not legal to shoot a human or sales person, nor is it legal to circumvent my TPM by running the Windows XP Troubleshooter!
If you're feeling a profound sense of WTF it only means you're not trained yet in understanding that the letter of the law trumps common sense. Ignore the feeling and pray you're not a deranged sycophant.
That said, I wonder if it is still a reasonable question as to whether the coupons in question in TFA qualify for strong protection under copyright and therefore DMCA qualification (see Lexmark/SCC + Feist).
We use a (non-persistent) session cookie as a technical measure to prevent copyright violations. By closing down the browser you will be "deleting" the session cookie and thus violate the DMCA! Moahahaha!
If they weren't using MS Windows, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah, those registry entries are huge files that just fill up tons of space on my hard drive. That's why I'm constantly deleting them!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
The DMCA doesn't require you to leave on your PC whatever a vendor puts there. It just requires you not to make illegal copies of things, even by doing something as legal as deleting files and registry keys.
OK, so I'm a scumbag malware author. I don't want my marks, correction, my customers messing with my work.
I break it up into multiple parts, each of which will make replacement copies of any missing parts almost immediately.
I tell the customer of this behaviour, calling it automatic self-healing of accidental damage.
I tell the customer that any deliberate deletion of a part by the customer or any agent of the customer will trigger unauthorised replacement copies in violation of copyright; that the continued simultaneous presence of all parts of my ummodified software ensures that no violation takes place.
Therefore, if any part is deliberately deleted, ALL other parts must be deleted at the same time to avoid a violation of copyright. I also claim that any software running as an agent of the customer that tries to interfere with this will be violating the DMCA. I provide a very lengthy and horrendously complicated procedure for manually removing all parts, and offer to sell software to perform the process.
Would any current anti-malware software deactivate and delete all the parts and do so without violating copyright or the DMCA or both?
Read through this long thread. There are imaging & sandboxing methods to overcome the coupon printing limitations. Most users wouldn't know how to follow such instructions or wouldn't think the time required is worth it to get a few coupons. Posted instructions have existed like that for years in forums without lawsuits.
Posted instructions have also existed on which files & registry keys to delete. Coupons Inc then issues a revision changing keys & file names and locations. Average people unknowingly following old instructions disable their ability to use or reinstall the coupon printer unless they're able to reformat or image back to the right point in time. Again, no lawsuits.
Some posts talk about using a PDF printer or printing to file or other simple answers. Those may still work with some individual coupon on a manufacturer site. It maybe worked long ago with Coupons Inc site, but no longer. Their coupon printing software only works if your options are set to direct printing with an approved print driver & it bypasses your ability to choose the number of copies. You could then photocopy but you'd be making an illegal counterfeit of the same unique serial number on the coupon.
I doubt Coupons Inc is very concerned with the few who can use the more technical measures vs someone who automates a solution for public use possibly with commercial reasons?
I understand how many see this guy as a DVD John type hero when the Wired story lacks all the information & can leave the impression it's just about deleting a registry key or file on your own computer.
Think about what might be unique & cumalative about this time to draw a lawsuit from Coupons Inc? Was there hacking of their software installer to determine which files & keys to delete to bypass security measures? What was the intent in posting instructions & providing an automated download? Was it a commercial profit intent to draw site visitors, build site value, & sales of items on that site? Was it an attempt to sell a solution to Coupons Inc vs the claim he made in the Wired news interview of seeking employment? I'm not an Attorney. Is that by intent or law equal to extortion? I don't know.
Was he also commercially offering Coupons Inc internet printed coupons on his site using language like he wasn't selling coupons but charging a handling fee? Did he previously hack programs in the flightsim community & feign his death when issues arose there? Does a Google search on his name yield more information? Is he now posting on many blogs sometimes directly & sometimes anonymously with links to his site including claiming financial need & seeking paypal legal donations? Is he the same person who claimed to have sold an early ISP in Florida for millions of dollars? How many websites has he had with commercial offerings & what happened to those sites? Does he claim to support free speech while threatening to sue others who speak out in blogs? What's his history of lawsuits?
I join most readers here in their disdain of many aspects of DMCA & it's application. I suggest waiting to know all the facts that hopefully will be reported as the case progresses. Perhaps it might have been better for Coupons Inc to use a law other than DMCA. What if Coupons Inc were your business being affected? Might you not use the law that might deliver the quickest result for you?