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."

Comments

If this precedent holds...

[JoshuaZ]

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.

Re:If this precedent holds...

[arivanov]

All that the precedent does is that it sends a warning to people to stop frivolously mixing in DMCA into what should be covered by contract law. The dongle is a mere enforcer of the contract so unless someone at MGE was very very daft GE would be in violation of a contract.

So while the first impression is that a pig has taken off, a more close inspection is showing that it is continuing on a ballistic trajectory after someone gave it some initial thrust. Not really flying.

Re:If this precedent holds...

[Splab]

We wont know if the pig is flying until it continuesly fails to hit the ground.

Re:If this precedent holds...

[PRMan]

I think this quote is a huge precedent...

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.

It means everything for Joe Average's DVD collection. He should have no problem putting it on a home server or a laptop, for instance, because he is not violating the Copyright Act by copying it for his own viewing/use.

Re:If this precedent holds...

[v1]

I think in principle the DMCA is merely another charge to be tacked on when a crime (copyright violation) has already occurred. Sort of how you can get a heavier charge if you're near a school, use a firearm, are a felon, etc. In this case, if you not only violated copyright, but went well out of your way to do it by "circumventing a protection method". (makes it harder to claim accidental infringement)

But historically it's been getting used as the primary law broken, which was not what it was originally intended for. That's like being charged with being in a school zone, without any proof of your having been speeding. "So would you like to settle with us for having been in the school zone, or do you want to get drug through court to prove your innocence on speeding?"

The unfortunate part is that the law has technically been getting interpreted correctly as written, because it's written backwards in the first place. This judge that overturned on appeal probably interpreted the law for what it was supposed to be, not what it is. Normally I'm against this, but in this case true justice actually prevailed over book justice. As such I'm not sure whether to support this or not. It sets a bad example of how the legal system is supposed to work - that it has to malfunction for fair justice to prevail. I'd be a lot happier seeing the law getting fixed than getting end-run-around. Mainly because this is likely to be an isolated incident.

The entire idea that someone can be charged with circumvention without being charged with copyright violation is just plain backward.

Re:If this precedent holds...

[Pharmboy]

It doesn't matter if the DVD says "no copying" if he is making copies that qualify as "fair use", which would take precedence. DMCA isn't about copying anyway, it is about bypassing security encryption. The judge appears to be saying "yes, they used the software illegally and are subject to fine, but using a crack to get around a dongle is not a DMCA violation by itself.".

In otherwords, if you copy your DVD using any method, then they can still sue you for infringement but is likely not a DMCA violation if you are doing so simply to USE the DVD (fair use). If you did it to make copies to sell, that might be a different case. In short, if you are breaking encryption for your applications that qualify under fair use, thus perfectly legal (make a personal backup copy of a disk you already own, or to create a critique, to parody but not satire, for education, etc.) then there is a good chance that you won't be found to be in violation of the DMCA. Keep in mind, IANAL and even being legally in the right can put you in the poorhouse defending yourself here in the good old USA.

The summary could be better

[stinerman]

[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.

Re:GE has deeper pockets

[snikulin]

Shut up and enjoy the ride.

Re:This opens a lot of doors

[s0litaire]

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!