The point is you don't have any DMCA problems with this method. You are only remapping electrical signals on cables, not messing with a copyrighted BIOS.
3rd party cartridges cost us about $3,000 in repairs on a Roland wide format printer (cracked the lines and ruined the heads) and messed up an Epson 3000 so bad it never worked right again.
We also know Lexmark is only using their interpretation of the DMCA to stifle competition. If nothing else, they figure they can bury the competition with legal bills.
By the dangers associated with a sluggish bureaucracy. It's not an active block as in "You can't import this." It's a passive one as in "You can import it, but we may make your lives miserable and ruin your company when we decide to get around to making rules on your type of product."
Then we agree. "The right to record without fear of legal repercussions." It's not the ability I'm stressing, it's the legality.
If Universal releases content that you cannot record, that's just tough luck for you.
True. And it should be tough luck for Universal if you hack their signal so that you can record again. The same just happened with DVDs. You couldn't record, then it got hacked so that you could, and now the studios are going against that through the courts.
Say Universal started broadcasting shows that could not be recorded on Sony decks. Could Sony sue Universal? Of course not. It has been upheld that certain noncommercial, in-home uses of a work are noninfringing.
The actual parallel is, could Universal then go after Sony for altering their machines so they could record programs as before? I'd say not, since the right to record is established. Here, Adobe had PDF, which was always readable and a medium for distribution of copyrighted works, encrypted the format, and went after those who wanted to be able to use it as they did before the encryption.
The law grants a monopoly limited in time but unlimited in scope to copyright holders, and then delineates very specific exceptions to that monopoly.
It's all about a balance of rights between the people and the copyright holder (yes, it has been framed in this manner). DMCA tips it too far to the copyright holder.
So far. Just like there used to be a choice with helmets
Good point. Same with car airbags, power brakes/ABS (soon in Europe), daytime running lights, seatbelts, etc. Except for the seatbelts, these are all things I don't want on a sports car and luckily was able to order one without (but not in America).
I say if you don't want the stuff, your government shouldn't force you to buy it. But we all know you are not responsible enough to decide what sort of safety equipment you want on your car.
The Elise didn't make it here probably because it fails the US DOT bumper test.
Oh yes, the test standard that has reaped massive benefit to the American publ^H^H^H^H insurance industry.
The new lights are great. They're very popular in Germany.
Good thing I'm in Canada
But you're still stuck with daytime running lights, aren't you? Those blind me every time I see them in front or behind me, especially being low in the Elise. Very dangerous.
The basic difference is that the car airbags was a requirement, these are rider's choice. Why does the government have to release specs on something before it's worthwhile?
Then let the buyer beware. All the testing they did on car airbags didn't stop kids from getting killed, but at least with these riders have a choice of buying them or not.
They've already done extensive testing for situations a rider might encounter. They are holding off because they're afraid of what the business effects and liability will be if the the DOT later makes a regulation that screws them. Meanwhile, it'll be widely sold in the safety-conscious EU.
Not that I personally love airbags. I hate U.S.-style airbags in cars. But if they're being made, U.S. consumers should have a choice to purchase them.
It doesn't remove the basic fact that these lifesaving devices will not be legally available in the U.S. because of our bureaucracy. Whether it's an active negative action of the bureaucracy, or a company not doing something lifesaving because it is afraid of same, it's still a bureaucracy operating to the detriment of the people.
Of course I could still be bitter against the DOT because they won't allow the fast, safe and fuel efficient Lotus Elise into the U.S.
Well, that and mandating airbags in cars before the technology was up to an acceptable and safe level, the cause of some major injuries to me.
Paragraph (B) refers to paragraph (A), which says you can't circumvent a technological measure. This lets you yourself personally exercise fair use, but only if the Library of Congress thinks your use should get an exception.
(a)(1)(E) is very interesting, saying basically you can't use the exception in (a)(1)(B) "...as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title..."
And then there's nothing for the common person limiting the power of (a)(2) to prohibit the tools necessary to exercise your rather vague rights under (a)(1)(B).
And even those granted protection appear to have the same revocation of protection as in (a)(1)(E), done in paragraph (d)(4). A library or school may have the exception to crack the encryption, but they are specifically not allowed to have the tools to do so.
So, if I get the DMCA right, we remove fair use rights, then grant an exception for them, but then state that the exception provides no defense under the law, and finally we make the means to exercise rights under the exception illegal in most commercial and all non-commercial use.
Remember that fair use is not technically a right. It is an exception to someone else's rights. If the author of the work does not want you to make use, he has the right to protect it.
Universal didn't want Sony to manufacture a product that allowed people to use their fair use rights in relation to Universal's copyrighted material. The Supreme Court sided with Sony, the people and fair use. Cool quotes:
Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.
...District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting [space and format shifting are in the same category] of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use
And don't forget what U.S. copyright is entirely based on: Granting the limited monopoly to producers is an exception of the right of the people to have access to all created works. The exception is granted solely to encourage people to produce works in the advancement of the arts and sciences.
So, no this isn't an exception to the copyright holders' rights, it's rights retained by the people.
In other words, if the copy protection mechanism prevents you from making a noninfringing use, you are not prohibited from circumventing it in order to make that noninfringing use.
But it is illegal to traffic in the tools that allow you to circumvent for legal reasons. Internal inconsistency is one reason laws like this get thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is you don't have any DMCA problems with this method. You are only remapping electrical signals on cables, not messing with a copyrighted BIOS.
3rd party cartridges cost us about $3,000 in repairs on a Roland wide format printer (cracked the lines and ruined the heads) and messed up an Epson 3000 so bad it never worked right again.
You get a little box, detach the wiring harness from the ECU, attach this thing to the ECU, and attach the wiring harness to it.
It simply remaps the engine control signals, giving you the performance, but without having to mess with the ECU itself.
It's also easier to unplug around inspection time.
We also know Lexmark is only using their interpretation of the DMCA to stifle competition. If nothing else, they figure they can bury the competition with legal bills.
The chips attached to the cartridges are, and they authenticate with the printer to allow the cartridge to be used.
One of the sickest comedians on the planet is yet again fighting for our rights.
(A better buisiness decision might have been to use an open source operating system and hire a bunch of developers to customize it for you.)
Their plan was to leverage Microsoft's marketing muscle in order for their product to be successful. Open source wouldn't have achieved that.
Unfortunately for them if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
No more 6502 code scrolling in front of his view again? They did better on the second. Wonder what they'll do for the third.
Lethal Weapon III
Three Colors: Red
By the dangers associated with a sluggish bureaucracy. It's not an active block as in "You can't import this." It's a passive one as in "You can import it, but we may make your lives miserable and ruin your company when we decide to get around to making rules on your type of product."
Then we agree. "The right to record without fear of legal repercussions." It's not the ability I'm stressing, it's the legality.
If Universal releases content that you cannot record, that's just tough luck for you.
True. And it should be tough luck for Universal if you hack their signal so that you can record again. The same just happened with DVDs. You couldn't record, then it got hacked so that you could, and now the studios are going against that through the courts.
Say Universal started broadcasting shows that could not be recorded on Sony decks. Could Sony sue Universal? Of course not. It has been upheld that certain noncommercial, in-home uses of a work are noninfringing.
The actual parallel is, could Universal then go after Sony for altering their machines so they could record programs as before? I'd say not, since the right to record is established. Here, Adobe had PDF, which was always readable and a medium for distribution of copyrighted works, encrypted the format, and went after those who wanted to be able to use it as they did before the encryption.
The law grants a monopoly limited in time but unlimited in scope to copyright holders, and then delineates very specific exceptions to that monopoly.
It's all about a balance of rights between the people and the copyright holder (yes, it has been framed in this manner). DMCA tips it too far to the copyright holder.
So far. Just like there used to be a choice with helmets
Good point. Same with car airbags, power brakes/ABS (soon in Europe), daytime running lights, seatbelts, etc. Except for the seatbelts, these are all things I don't want on a sports car and luckily was able to order one without (but not in America).
I say if you don't want the stuff, your government shouldn't force you to buy it. But we all know you are not responsible enough to decide what sort of safety equipment you want on your car.
Don't have a standard? Or treaty with the EU for cross-recognition of standards?
Nope, can't do that. This whole standards thing has two reasons: appease the insurance industry and create protective trade barriers.
The Elise didn't make it here probably because it fails the US DOT bumper test.
Oh yes, the test standard that has reaped massive benefit to the American publ^H^H^H^H insurance industry.
The new lights are great. They're very popular in Germany.
Good thing I'm in Canada
But you're still stuck with daytime running lights, aren't you? Those blind me every time I see them in front or behind me, especially being low in the Elise. Very dangerous.
The basic difference is that the car airbags was a requirement, these are rider's choice. Why does the government have to release specs on something before it's worthwhile?
We're all little children who need tending to.
Me, I prefer some independant testing.
Then let the buyer beware. All the testing they did on car airbags didn't stop kids from getting killed, but at least with these riders have a choice of buying them or not.
They've already done extensive testing for situations a rider might encounter. They are holding off because they're afraid of what the business effects and liability will be if the the DOT later makes a regulation that screws them. Meanwhile, it'll be widely sold in the safety-conscious EU.
Not that I personally love airbags. I hate U.S.-style airbags in cars. But if they're being made, U.S. consumers should have a choice to purchase them.
It doesn't remove the basic fact that these lifesaving devices will not be legally available in the U.S. because of our bureaucracy. Whether it's an active negative action of the bureaucracy, or a company not doing something lifesaving because it is afraid of same, it's still a bureaucracy operating to the detriment of the people.
Of course I could still be bitter against the DOT because they won't allow the fast, safe and fuel efficient Lotus Elise into the U.S.
Well, that and mandating airbags in cars before the technology was up to an acceptable and safe level, the cause of some major injuries to me.
American sales will have to wait since the U.S. Department of Transportation has yet to set standards for such a device."
So, how many motorcyclists will die a preventable death before the DOT gets off its ass and allows these.
A file that has been run through ROT-13 is not readable.
Some people can read ROT-13 text, making that not even an access control mechanism. It's only for your example, the rest of the comment is correct.
Paragraph (B) refers to paragraph (A), which says you can't circumvent a technological measure. This lets you yourself personally exercise fair use, but only if the Library of Congress thinks your use should get an exception.
(a)(1)(E) is very interesting, saying basically you can't use the exception in (a)(1)(B) "...as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title..."
And then there's nothing for the common person limiting the power of (a)(2) to prohibit the tools necessary to exercise your rather vague rights under (a)(1)(B).
And even those granted protection appear to have the same revocation of protection as in (a)(1)(E), done in paragraph (d)(4). A library or school may have the exception to crack the encryption, but they are specifically not allowed to have the tools to do so.
So, if I get the DMCA right, we remove fair use rights, then grant an exception for them, but then state that the exception provides no defense under the law, and finally we make the means to exercise rights under the exception illegal in most commercial and all non-commercial use.
Universal didn't want Sony to manufacture a product that allowed people to use their fair use rights in relation to Universal's copyrighted material. The Supreme Court sided with Sony, the people and fair use. Cool quotes:
- Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.
- ...District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting [space and format shifting are in the same category] of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use
And don't forget what U.S. copyright is entirely based on: Granting the limited monopoly to producers is an exception of the right of the people to have access to all created works. The exception is granted solely to encourage people to produce works in the advancement of the arts and sciences.So, no this isn't an exception to the copyright holders' rights, it's rights retained by the people.
In other words, if the copy protection mechanism prevents you from making a noninfringing use, you are not prohibited from circumventing it in order to make that noninfringing use.
But it is illegal to traffic in the tools that allow you to circumvent for legal reasons. Internal inconsistency is one reason laws like this get thrown out by the Supreme Court.
His country's government allowed the U.S. to try him for killing the girl after intense pressure from the U.S. government.