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.
It's the pig le resistance! It's just a little airborne! It's still good, it's still good!
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.
[quote]MGE sued, won, and has now lost on GE's appeal.[/quote]
TFA:
[quote]A jury awarded MGE more than $4.6 million in damages for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, but the trial judge dismissed its Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim. MGE appealed, arguing that its dongles barred the kind of access to its software that the Act is meant to prevent.[/quote]
MGE appealed the trial judge throwing out the DMCA claim. The appeals court confirmed the ruling. GE didn't appeal anything.
I wonder if this may ever escalate into being allowed to legally download a torrent of a DVD you own but have broken? Yeah...a guy can dream :(
Conclusion. VI.
For the foregoing reasons, [1] we AFFIRM the district court's grant of
GE/PMI's Rule 50(a) motion dismissing MGE's DMCA claim. [2] We also AFFIRM
the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against GE/PMI's use of
MGE's software and trade secrets. [3] We REVERSE the district court's denial of
GE/PMI's Rule 50(a) motion on MGE's copyright infringement, unfair
competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims for MGE's failure to
prove damages under 17 U.S.C. 504(b) and Texas law, [4] and RENDER a takenothing
judgment for MGE.
GE/PMI already paid for what they've done (the Rule 50 motions) and the injunction effectively means they'll either have to setup a new support contract or replace the UPS systems.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
No, backing up involves copying, and hence violates copyright.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
-- 17 U.S.C. 117
For whatever reason, however, this only applies to computer programs. Presumably because other media weren't so easy to copy back when this part of the code was last modified in 1980.
Rob
If you have $782 Billion in assets, yes.
Shut up and enjoy the ride.
Think it's more like Linux users will be able to use "open source" programs to play Blu-Ray disks legally.
As it stands, it's illegal to rip/copy the Blu-Ray to another format for storing or viewing.
However this ruling makes it legal to break the encryption just for the purposes of playback. (The intended function of the disk is for playback).
But what do I know! IANAL!
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
I thought courts have already ruled that a program residing in memory is a copy, and therefore making that copy without the dongle (which implies limited consent to making said copy in memory) is a violation of copyright. I wouldn't be surprised to see this reversed.
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.
I wonder, given that DVD menus are effectively a simple bytecode run in an interpretor that results in the playing of video (possibly with additional video and audio overlays) that the DVD as a whole can be taken to be a computer program and it's essential associated data files.
Can any Slashdotters with legal know-how are to comment on any implications this ruling might have for HDCP stripper dongles/boxes?
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?
For the anti-trafficking provision what matters is the potential uses of the tool. That GE as the initial develper used the tools for legitimate purposes is beside the point -- as long as the tools can be used to circumvent copyright protection, they fall under the no-trafficking prohibition. For example, it is perfectly legal to copy the works of William Shakespeare. But it is not legal to break copy-protection on specific editions of his works, even for the purpose of making legal copies. Second, in the US the legal rule is that running software involves copying (copying the binary from storage media to RAM) and therefore requires specific authorization from the copyright owner. In other words, there exist a kind of copyrighted work where "using" the content inheretly involves copying. I think the legal rule is wrong, but as long as it stands you cannot separate "using" and "copying".
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
Good, finally something to stop such nonsense.
I imagine these UPS systems are incredibly expensive as it is, and the maker does something so they're limited use? Which was probably discovered AFTER the fact. To me, that's highway robbery, you buy a machine, then have to upgrade a license?
I have to say, even though GE is one of the big evil companies that most slashdotters hate (or should hate, given hate towards companies like microsoft, GE makes them look like angels) They had a right to fight this.
Sadly, they only won because they're so damn huge and have a lot of sway in the government *AND* media. If this had been, say, you or me, we'd get taken to the cleaners.
Funny how the DMCA is coming back to bite the same companies who pushed for it, in the ass.
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.
This is the equivalent of buying a game or a program that requires a media check (e.g. "Insert DVD/CD-ROM to start the game") and then downloading a modified executable from GameCopyWorld.com to play your own game without the media check. Many people have been doing this for a long time and this ruling sets a precedent that effectively legitimizes the usage of these helpful executable.
The problems with GCW is that a lot of times they include a full copy of the modified executable instead of just a small patcher or cracker program so they are still violating the copyright on the original executable code by distributing it without a license from the authors. The quick solution would be to download the patchers or crackers but since many of those are built using pre-made small assembly or C modular code (not shared libraries or DLLs) that has also be used by virus makers many of these legitimate pieces of modular code have been flagged by anti-virus companies as viruses just because they were used to make them. This is why your keygen, patcher, cracker executable will end up flagging anti-virus warnings immediately on download or usage or even months or years after you've successfully used them without getting an infection since their modules were flagged later. So GCW has a hard time with false-positive virus warnings and that's why they show that web page on download about their code being 100% clean and still allow download of full executables instead of just the patchers.
No, backing up involves copying, and hence violates copyright. It does mean though that things like VLC can get on with playing DVDs/Blurry disks.
Note that copying a DVD is entirely trivial, and unencumbered by any protection at all. CSS is purely a "use-protection" mechanism (which is why it was always so violently wrong for the DMCA to apply to it -- copyright law was supposed to govern copying and distribution, not use.)
So IMHO, not being AL, this ruling does appear to argue against the DMCA's ability to regulate DeCSS cracking. I expect it will be promptly overturned at the next level of appeals, because after all we can't allow copyright law to work for both the producer and consumer, can we?
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.
In the PsyStar vs. Apple case, I believe it was ruled that Apple could not claim copyright infringement on the copies of Mac OS loaded into RAM when each of the computers booted.
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993)
and more recently
MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc. No. 06-2555, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53988, 2008 WL 2757357 (D. Ariz. Jul. 14, 2008)
What's so bad about it? Microsoft expressly disclaims any and all warranty and liability, while maintaining that you do not possess your first sale doctrine rights. Check this out:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/09/09/student-beats-microsoft-legally-by-himself/
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Actually, that interpretation to me sounds like nonsense. You can very well copy a DVD image without DeCSS'ing it, and then use DeCSS on-the-fly to play it. The "copy protection" of CSS depends on the CSS key being only in a few approved devices just like this software only works with approved dongles. If it's not a violation of the DMCA to turn an unusable copy into a functional copy, then effective DeCSS doesn't protect against copyright violation either.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The problem here is that copyright is unnatural, and absolutely ridiculous. The only reason for copyright is controlling thought, and profiting excessively from created content. Their orwellian attempt at controlling information allows us to imagine all kinds of ridiculous circumstances.
Example:
If I legally play a movie at my house, but I happen to have a legal surveillance camera in there, and as part of the image my camera is recording, it records the surface of the TV, is that security footage illegal, does it constitute copyright infringement?
If I legally download a movie,let's say, from itunes, and I don't actively share it, but I have my machine connected to the internet, and my hard drive is shared through samba, unsecured, to the whole internet. If someone connects to that samba share, and then copies the movie, is that my fault? Is it my duty too to protect the media I have from being copied? To what extent?
If the photons that my LCD is emitting when I'm watching a move leave my house, am I broadcasting the movie, therefore, infringing copyright? Up to what point am I supposed to protect that movie from being copied? Is closing the curtains enough, or since energy can't be destroyed, only transformed, I am legally obliged to control the energy emanating from my LCD forever?
If I legally store a legally downloaded movie on my hard drive, and then, due to a vulnerability in my operating system, that information is leaked, and every single human being on the world downloads a copy, is it my fault or the fault of the developers of my OS?
Copyright is ridiculous and unnatural, and all attempts to control information are equally stupid.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
What makes your questions interesting has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. You could replace copying in your examples with other torts or crimes that you're unintentionally abetting.
For example, if it rains, and the rain freezes to my walkway, and I don't clear it off or post a sign, and somebody walks up to my door but slips and severely injures themself, am I liable? (yes!)