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."
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?
The major difference is in the serial numbers. The method you describe equals photocopying, this was in TFA also mentioned as being an issue for coupons.com's business.
However with the software trick, the user would be able to download completely new coupons with new, unique serial numbers - and this would supposedly be untraceable. He is really giving instructions to circumvent a copy protection mechanism, and it has been argued on /. before (sorry too lazy to dig for links) that a trick as simple as ROT13 would be protected under the DMCA as copy protection mechanism. I also doubt the law will specifically talk about "encryption" as only copy protection mechanism, that's just not how laws are written.
And by the way, instead of saving as pdf (or print-to-file), one could of course also just print 10 copies in one go. Now it's really been years since I've been working with Windows, but I do recall that used to be possible, just like in Linux/Gnome and OS-X.
There, there.
(Hear, hear!)
.....When you click "I Agree" and next, you are making yourself liable.....
When you click a mouse you are NOT agreeing to anything, no matter how many lawyers of these companies are trying to make you believe that. First of all, there is NO way to prove who clicked what or how the program got on any particular computer. If someone wanted to break the law, they could make an entire virtualized file of Windows available on the net with all programs.
To enter into a binding contract or agreement, both parties actually have to agree to something, be of legal age (not a minor) and be identifiable. That's why for REAL agreements, there is at least a signature of BOTH parties and the date. Without those, there is no agreement or contract. The age old law has not been erased, just because of the computer age.
If the agreement is an important one, there is also a NOTARY who attests to the identities of the parties and that they did indeed agree to whatever is on the papers they BOTH signed. Not being able to enter into binding agreements that cannot be repudiated or easily challenged is one of the big hang-ups of the digital age. Try to get a loan entirely over the Internet, without some sort of old-fashioned paperwork with signatures and date.
All theory is gray
More than that, a coupon is not copyrightable. You can say that a duplicate copy of a coupon is not to be accepted by stores, and you can refuse to honor it if a store ignores that rule, but you can't prevent people from making a million copies, as it would not qualify as a creative work by any stretch of the imagination, IMHO. You can only really prevent people from using them by specifying an "originals only" policy on the face of the coupon.
In this case, the company can be accused of gross negligence, which pretty much gets this guy off the hook because of contributory negligence, I suspect. All the company needed to do was make their software send a unique identifier---maybe hash the computer's hard drive ID, the CPU ID, hard drive size, other things unlikely to change---to the server and keep track of it on the server side. That's very basic, trivial security to implement, and the fact that they did not do this means that not only could somebody fool it this way, but also could simply reinstall windows and get the same effect. Yeah, that's like killing a fly with a hand grenade or even a nuclear warhead, but the point is that they didn't really try at all to prevent you from getting more than one coupon.
At worst, this person is in breach of the user agreement of the software, and thus could probably get some civil liability, maybe criminal if they stole a huge amount of money with these coupons... but probably just a civil suit for the coupon value plus penalties for violating the user agreement... assuming the company even has a record of all of the violations. Otherwise, it's probably just whatever damages they can squeeze out of this person for violating the user agreement....
IANALBIPOOSD.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
A lawyer friend explained to me that intent is everything, at least it used to be. Say you are in the store and pick up a candy bar, then continue shopping for the one item you went in to get. Upon discovering they were out of that item, you leave, completely forgetting about the candy bar in your hand. You aren't guilty of shoplifting because you did not intend to commit the crime. You spaced. Unfortunately, these days prosecutors don't give a shit about intent. They just want to increase their score (convictions) in the game (promotion).
-- Will program for bandwidth
The law was phrased badly. "Effectively" here means "in effect", not "to the fullest effect".
If a plastic ribbon saying "STOP - POLICE LINE - DO NOT ENTER" in effect causes people to turn away, it's "effectively" stopping people, even if it's not "effective" in the sense of actually stopping someone.
Unfortunately, the laws which are relevant specify what "effective" means. A reasonably accurate paraphrasing would be that an effective measure is one that exists. Not one that works, one that exists.
The technological equivalent of turning a piece of paper the other way round so you have to read it upside down would count as being effective as long as I said it was. It's completely and utterly idiotic, but that's what the laws tend to state in most relevant countries, including the US and the UK.
Not using the seatbelt only endangers myself. ... and the people your car hits after you go through the windscreen.
Actually, if an adult in the back of the car doesnt wear his seatbelt, in a crash he could come smashing into the back of the front seat and smash his head against whoever was sat in the front seat...
If i'm sat in the front of a car, i damn well do want people behind me wearing their seatbelts to reduce the risk of them killing me. I dont really care if they choose to kill themselves.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I suspect this is exactly the sort of thing the DMCA was meant to apply to. Let's check the list:
1) Is there a large organization?
2) Is there a customer of that organization?
3) Did the entity in 2) do something the entity in 1) didn't like?
Check, check, and check. DMCA violation.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
http://www.mhall119.com