Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules That Bypassing Dongle Is Not a DMCA Violation
tcrown007 sends along an appeals court ruling that, for once, limits the reach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention clause. "MGE UPS makes UPS systems and software that are protected by hardware dongles. After the dongles expired, GE bypassed the dongles and continued to use the software. MGE sued, won, and has now lost on GE's appeal. Directly from the court's ruling (PDF): "Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision... The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing.' Say what? I think I just saw a pig fly by."
If this precedent holds we may be in very good shape. The obvious generalization is to allowing such circumvention for fair use. If that occurs, then most of the problems with this legislation go out the window.
I feel stupid for asking this, but doesn't this mean that as long as you're not violating copyright, you can go ahead and crack that protection? As in... backing up a DVD I own will finally be legal? Any actual lawyers got a thought on this?
While they did circumvent a defensive measure, they didn't make a copy of it. This is a matter of a contractual violation (assuming it is even that, I'm no lawyer so...). They paid for said software use for a period of time, and are going beyond that allowed period of time.
Note that in this case GE is a large company which has within it the know-how to break copy protection. But even if GE was within their rights to circumvent the dongles, it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else -- even if the present ruling stands and the recipient would be allowed to break the protections themselves.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies. So this ruling actually means basically nothing to individuals, and very little to companies (except for those that have in-house engineers capable of reinventing the wheel).
At the bottom there's no way for the courts to fix the DMCA, since it's likely within Congress's powers to enact and it's not up to the courts to second-guess Congress about the policy choices – no matter how bad they were. The only way to fix the DMCA is for Congress to fix it.
If you have $782 Billion in assets, yes.
Shut up and enjoy the ride.
The judge seemed clear to me that the previous court's award for the continued use of the software was correct. But that the DMCA did not in itself entitle them to further damages.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
IANAL, but I don't believe you can apply this same logic to DeCSS
The trouble with that is that GE's "circumvention" allowed them to use the product, but had no bearing on their ability to copy the product.
With DVDs/Blu-Rays, there's no distinction: the same "device" which allows you to "use" the product also allows you to copy it.
Or am I wrong about the GE case?
According to the Wiki, you could already rip the DVDs. It was illegal to make and distribute the tools to rip such DVDs, though.
Dilbert RSS feed
IANAL, but from what I can see, the answer is "no". What it seems to imply is that you can work around a hardware lockout in order to make use of a product in your possession.(Analogy: You own a padlocked toolbox, and you lost the key, you can pop the lock with bolt cutters) Whether their continued possession of that product is legitimate is not what was at issue, that would be a matter for a separate suit, which in this case may be subject to existing contract law. (Analogy: inside the toolbox is your cousin's wrench, he can sue you to recover the wrench)
Oh, fair use might allow you to backup something you own, so long as 1) it's actually yours to own and 2) you don't circumvent any encryption algorithms in the process and 3) you're not violating someone else's copyright in making that copy.
As I understand it, the DMCA also prevents you from changing formats of the material you intend to copy. VHS to VHS might be ok, (subject to the prior restrictions) DVD to DVD might also be allowed (same restrictions) but VHS to DVD or DVD to VHS is a big no-no.
Obtaining permission from the copyright holder may or may not help, either. If in doubt, best thing is just not to run the risk.
What's more troublesome is the ability to reclaim copyright from things that are in the public domain. Now, a bunch of things that WERE legal may not actually be so, anymore, and how the heck do you know the difference?
US copyright law is fundamentally broken, for many reasons, retroactive reclamation of copyright is only one example.
If Company X says you're merely licensed, doesn't that mean that they now need to provide replacements in perpetuity? Lets say my priceless collection of 8 tracks has finally lost its magnetism. Isn't that company now required to provide me with replacement 8-tracks, at cost? Never mind that 8-tracks are a dead tech, I paid the license for 8-tracks, therefore they are OBLIGATED to make sure I keep that format.
Or even games? Shouldn't companies be obligated to support EVERY game they sell to valid "licensees", in perpetuity (until they die)? Game servers must be always up, tech support, etc. After all the game never said it's a limited license for support and features.
Companies can't have it both ways. If they only they own it and merely license, then they need to license and support forever, or give up this notion that "licensees" cannot do whatever with it.
So what is the problem?
The problem is that some people do not like having terms dictated to them, "problems" or not. It's the principle of the thing. An "agreement" is between TWO parties. An EULA is one party telling another party what to do. Only the funny thing is, back in my day, usually it was the guy that was doing the paying that got to have a say.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Torrenting is usually (unless all you do is leech) simultaneously redistributing while downloading.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."