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."

Comments

Intentionally misleading

[Enderandrew]

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?

Re:Intentionally misleading

[Enderandrew]

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.

Misleading subject, sensationalism.

[liftphreaker]

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?

Less random bashing please

[thouth]

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.

Re:Wouldn't there be easier ways to sue him?

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Lousy excuse

[NormalVisual]

Then he should be charged with fraud, not copyright infringement through some twisted interpretation of an already twisted law.

Devil's Advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This brings up a good point

[Arceliar]

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.

DM-Copyright-A

[ben there...]

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? Ahh, the great art of coupon design. Next thing you know they'll all be sharing them and viewing them on their iPods.

Re:Wouldn't there be easier ways to sue him?

[drmerope]

Sorry, but an anti-circumvention argument is a stretch.

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter. -- USC Title 17, Section 1201(a)(1)(A)

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.

Story distortion is getting old on Slashdot

[GoldTeamRules]

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.

Re:Wouldn't there be easier ways to sue him?

[fractoid]

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'.

Re:Wouldn't there be easier ways to sue him?

[einhverfr]

System Restore: Now a Circumvention Measure under the DMCA...

Re:Wouldn't there be easier ways to sue him?

[kripkenstein]

According to the DMCA,

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The coupon is the copyrighted work; the software that only allows it to be printed once is the technological measure; the circumvention is tricking the software so that it prints multiple copies. Perhaps we should trust the lawyers quoted in TFA, it seems like this might indeed be a DMCA violation.

God, what an awful law.