Slashdot Mirror
Feds Say Hacking DRM To Fix Your Electronics Is Legal (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Librarian of Congress and U.S. Copyright Office just proposed new rules that will give consumers and independent repair experts wide latitude to legally hack embedded software on their devices in order to repair or maintain them. This exemption to copyright law will apply to smartphones, tractors, cars, smart home appliances, and many other devices. The move is a landmark win for the "right to repair" movement; essentially, the federal government has ruled that consumers and repair professionals have the right to legally hack the firmware of "lawfully acquired" devices for the "maintenance" and "repair" of that device. Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair; it is now legal to hack many consumer electronics.
Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for "the maintenance of a device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" or for "the repair of a device or system to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications." New copyright rules are released once every three years by the U.S. Copyright Office and are officially put into place by the Librarian of Congress. These are considered "exemptions" to section 1201 of U.S. copyright law, and makes DRM circumvention legal in certain specific cases. The new repair exemption is broad, applies to a wide variety of devices (an exemption in 2015 applied only to tractors and farm equipment, for example), and makes clear that the federal government believes you should be legally allowed to fix the things you own.
Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for "the maintenance of a device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" or for "the repair of a device or system to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications." New copyright rules are released once every three years by the U.S. Copyright Office and are officially put into place by the Librarian of Congress. These are considered "exemptions" to section 1201 of U.S. copyright law, and makes DRM circumvention legal in certain specific cases. The new repair exemption is broad, applies to a wide variety of devices (an exemption in 2015 applied only to tractors and farm equipment, for example), and makes clear that the federal government believes you should be legally allowed to fix the things you own.
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
Since the whole debacle there supposedly started over removal of the third party OS option, which was an original feature they took away. Wouldn't this technically allow anything to be cracked if an "update" removed any functionality? I like it, just seems like this is HUGE.
... you can bet companies will still fight tooth and nail to get around this shit. Just like now game companies can take advantage of mass public ignorance and high speed internet to legally reclassify all new games as "services". Just as with the new Assasins creed because they control the software from the point of production and their customers are 100's of miles away.
https://www.dailydot.com/layer...
does this apply to manuals and repair tools as well?
As apple can say that some repair (MANUALS / schematics) are DRM locked.
also with cars / tractors same with the software that you need to run on a different system.
also the original specifications makes it so they can SAY repair parts / tools / manuals are DEALER ONLY! or even the device in the first place is DEALER ONLY repair.
lots of games don't work anymore because of DRM. Especially multiplayer games.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company)
IANAL but it seems that if a person originally had a right to use a copy of the original software/firmware then even if modified the remaining original software still carries that license. A person could not then transfer it elsewhere but if Device A could use software modules B, C & D then device A could still continue using modules B & D even if C was modified or replaced.
Courts rule in the specific facts of individual cases, and we can only predict what the ruling might be. Having said that:
If you distribute it for that legitimate, lawful purpose, and all of your messaging (marketing etc) points to a lawful purpose, you'd probably be fine.
On the other hand, if you have a web site where you advertise "steal Hollywood movies", your internal emails talk about paying people to use the tool for unlawful purposes, you make millions of dollars from people using it unlawfully, and you get a custom license plate that says "guilty", you're probably going to have a bad time in court.
Normally, the specifications for how the software should behave wouldn't specify that it should be buggy.
A notable exception is several software products were designed to be compatible with / emulate Internet Explorer, specifically including emulating some of its more important bugs.
There may be decisions made in which the designers chose something they thought was good. You think it's bad, so you call it a bug. "Fixing" (changing) that probably wouldn't be restoring it to its original specification, though if there is a written standard such as http it could be argued that the standard is rhe specification for how an http client or server should behave.
1870 when the Librarian of Congress centralized copyright functions and then the Copyright Office became its own department in 1897. As for the frequency of these interpretations, section 1201 of the DMCA provides for exemption petitions to be heard. A little more detailed link on the original story.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Limiting to "original specifications" is a major loophole and could be used to block performance improvements (in both vehicles and electronics) or ability to work with new formats of content or peripherals (the latter also applies to vehicles [I'm thinking of attachments to tractors, but it applies more generally as well] as well as electronics).
I think the intent is to prevent unlocking features that require an additional charge to the vendor.
I suppose it could also apply to something like an engine ECU re-flash that alters performance. That one is thorny because those changes can increase emissions too, which could be illegal. Poorly done ECU tuning can also damage the engine.
A win for farmers who were very upset with Deere not allowing owners of their tractors to service them. Something many farmers do on a regular basis. I think anyone should have a right to use whomever to repair their products.
No, technically a patent violation claim can be made any time you make, use, sell, or offer to sell the product without the patent holder's permission (often in the form of an authorization or license).
True, but if you don't cause the patent holder any verifiable financial damages what can they sue you for? If you are just using it personally, from a device you built yourself, how does that damage them? You didn't buy the device from a licensed manufacturer and denied them the royalties?
Civil law is pretty clear, actual damages is all you get to collect. Punitive damages are only for outrageous behavior, which if you where only using the patent for personal use, is unlikely to be considered outrageous.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, technically a patent violation claim can be made any time you make, use, sell, or offer to sell the product without the patent holder's permission (often in the form of an authorization or license).
True, but if you don't cause the patent holder any verifiable financial damages what can they sue you for? If you are just using it personally, from a device you built yourself, how does that damage them?
Technically, punitive damages are easily obtain in patent court thanks to Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. I doubt it would happen, but legally speaking, it's a possibility.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
You caused them damage because by repairing the old device, you did not have to buy a replacement product. In short, you saving yourself money causes financial damage.
If you think that argument is utter nonsense, I invite you to take a look at this 1942 Supreme Court case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
TLDR: A farmer grew his own wheat on his own farm to feed to his animals. U.S. sued him for dodging wheat growing limits. Farmer argued that the wheat was not bought nor sold and is thus not interstate commerce. The Court said by growing his own food, he was doing economic damage because he was no longer required to buy and thus is effecting interstate commerce. Farmer lost.