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.
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
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It appears that you have to install software that only allows you to print so many coupons. This guy developed software that erases the tracking thing that limits you and allows you to take more then they gave you.
I would say yes there is fraud going on here. When using this program you are intentionally misrepresenting yourself to the suppliers of the coupons after already agreeing to their terms for receiving them. The DMCA part comes in because he wrote a program that allows you to defraud the providers by bypassing their technology that allows them to control access to the coupons. Not because deleting things are illegal. You could delete the stuff and not use the program to get coupons again and never run into this DMCA problem.
Note, this isn't an endorsement of the DMCA. It just isn't the problem in how the story represents it.
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.
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.
That is the thing with EULA's. With a law, we assume it needs to be fair and consistent. Rules should be the same for software across the board, right, or it should make sense in some way. However, a software company can basically put whatever terms they want into a EULA and get away with it, because 99% of people never even read them.
If I were a programmer, I'd hide crazy stuff in the EULA just to see if people catch it.
"On the third Thursday of August, if you happen to be sleeping with your significant other, you must satisfy them no less than 2 times, and no more than 4 times, each time making them call out my name. If you are not engaging in such activities on that date, you may substitute a fan-fiction of no less than 1,500 words which must be posted to 3 separate social networking sites and USENET."
"Technical assistance will only be provided after we finger each other online.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Sorry, but an anti-circumvention argument is a stretch.
Now, is a technological measure that can be defeated by merely deleting files or removing registry keys "effective"?
I think not. The real gem is why companies would prefer to use the DMCA: fraud is a civil matter requiring them to pursue the case on their own dime. Conversely, the DMCA allows for criminal prosecution. Whether or not the government is likely to play ball, the threat of such action improves the likelihood of "fear-for-your-life" settlement from the defendant.
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
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.
"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
You mean that copy protection crackable by magic markers is 'effective'? I think they mean 'effectively' in the sense of 'in effect', not 'with good performance'.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
It appears that you missed the whole part about intent.
Yes, you can delete whatever you like on your computer, but if you delete it with the intent of and for the purpose of breaking the law, you break the law. You can delete the same parts for other intents and purposes, but once it's in order to break the law, you can't use your ownership as a successful defense. I have a feeling that metaphors and similes from the tangible world are lost on you, but I'll try again with another example: You're allowed to throw away (delete) the battery from your smoke detector and empty the fire extinguisher, but if the reason you did so was to burn down the house and cash out on the insurance, that action in itself becomes illegal (even if you never got around to burning down the house). Or how about another computer example: If you delete all your tax files from your computer because you suspect you'll get audited, you're also breaking the law.
If the intent is malicious, the action is malicious, no matter whether the same action can also be done legally.
In this case, the intent was crystal clear. The user deleted the very specific parts that would prevent the user from printing out more copies than the copyright holder allowed, and nothing else. Please explain how this could possibly not be with bad intent.
The DMCA probably also comes into play because it would be hard to identify just which parts to delete without unauthorised reverse engineering.
It doesn't have to be there. It's not a contractual obligation you agree to -- it's copyrights, which are legal whether you agree to them or not. If I say you can make a maximum of N copies of something I've written, that's my prerogative as copyright holder.
There's diddley squat you can do about it -- if you make more copies, and it's not for fair use, library preservation or any other purpose specifically exempted by law, you can not legally make more copies than what I permit. Your agreement is not required.
Open container laws are a public safety matter. You don't want drivers to be drinking in the car and the same goes for their passengers.
Highway speed limits were originally set at 55 mph as a fuel conservation measure. Later they were raised to 65, but not higher because of public safety concerns.
Federal highway funds were linked with both of those issues to gaurantee that States would enact those two laws.
Neither of those examples really backs up the point you're trying to make (because they're arguably about public safety), nor do they have anything to do with the topic at hand... the DMCA.
Quoting from Ayn Rand doth not automatically make a post insightful. Especially when you follow it up with a poorly supported argument.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Copyright is designed to protect artistic and scholarly works. Not coupons. A few generic phrases used in millions of similar forms would not be protected by copyright. Possibly if there was some elaborate artwork included in the background that might be copyright. But damages would be difficult to assess, if any.
I think it's an abuse of process. If he's guilty of anything, it's fraud, and they should try to make that stick instead of using a law that was never designed to apply in this situation.
God, what an awful law.
The DMCA isn't about copyright, it's about circumventing copyright protection mechanisms. It is entirely possible to be guilty of violating the DMCA, but not guilty of copyright violation. Consider this:
1.) It is legal to make a personal backup copy of a DVD that you own.
2.) It is illegal to bypass copy protection on a DVD that you own for the purposes of #1.
It's basically a law that makes you guilty of "breaking and entering" into your own home. It's worse than redundant.
http://www.mhall119.com
Untrue. It would only be illegal if you were deleting them for the purposes of circumventing copy protection, which would not be the case if you were simply removing the software from your hard drive.
It's an anti-circumvention clause...If there is no circumvention, then you haven't done any thing to violate it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.