There are similarities, but this is a much more advanced and generic system. The Itsy is just a photo viewer, this is an entire virtual desktop on a handheld.
To adapt to a repidly-changing environment, you need a rapid turnover of new generations. Whales won't evolve their legs back again, they don't have the time to do it. Some other, smaller sea-creature will take up that niche. Maybe it'll then evolve to be really big.
Two stories about the evolution of flight in a row? Who'd'a thought it?
The IMB case might have wings, but Apple stopping MS for making something similar? Maybe if it wan Mac software, but a modern-day Ransom Olds couldn't stop Henry Ford just because he's making something that is functionally similar. Nonetheless, I think both this and the Lexmark suit are going to sink.
If those countries learn from the US experience (Lexmark, Chamberlain) and formulate their DMCA-like law so that it is less open to this kind of abuse, then there is a commercial advantage to basing your reverse-engineering business in those countries.
According to the founding fathers, I have a right to own lethal weapons.
Acciording to the founding fathers, you also have the right to own slaves. They just didn't make it explicitly clear in the constitution, although it is alluded to in the census provision. My point is that those founding fathers shouldn't be considered the epitome of wisdom applicable to all times and circumstances.
That's not really a fair comparison, as movies have a much shorter shelf-life than albums, and there's more of a 'must see' thing around the big movies that get all the publicity. That is, you get a few huge blockbuster movies that sell in the multi-millions, whereas you get a larger number of albums that sell just a few million each.
It's not the ink that is the centre of Lexmark's case, but the software that authenticates the refills. Lexmark claim that the fake chips "access" the software, therefore break the DMCA. However, "access" in copyright law means acquiring a copy of the protected work. They're abusing the wording of the law.
Modifying a cable box in order to view channels not paid for doesn't violate copyright, it is a breech of contract.
I'm surprised. Astonished, in fact. So much so that I doubt that you are correct, but I don't think this line of arguement is going very far. IANAL, RU?
They're claiming it's a copyright violation, just so that they can invoke the DMCA. It isn't a copyright violation - and that's important in this instance. Whether an actual copyright violation would be of any use to anyone is beside the point.
With the cable box, you are modifying it in such a way that copyright infringement occurs, i.e. you get access to programmes that you haven't paid for. Using a non-Lexmark toner cartridge is not copyright infringement.
DeCSS is used to create an unencrypted copy of the movie. Executing code is not protected by the DMCA. Providing access to a copyrighted work is - and "access" has a very specific meaning in copyright law. A meaning that makes a mockery of the DeCSS case, mind you, but that's another issue. Hang on, no it isn't - the DeCSS case hung on a broken interpretation of 'access', so this case might go through by the same logic. It's wrong, though. People should expect to pay a fair price for a printer, and be free to buy their consumables wherever they wish.
Anyone is free to sell a crappy product, that's what the free market is all about. They will survive if their product is worth the money ($5 for a crappy toner cart may be better then $30 for a quality one to some people).
That doesn't involve software, and they are playing with words by saying that the fake chips circumvent a mechanism that protects access to their copyright material, to wit the toner authentication code. The flaw in their theory, IMO, is that it does not provide access to their IP. It doesn't cause the code to be printed out or loaded up the cable into the PC, all it does is cause it to execute an operation that is necessary to the functioning of the printer. It accesses the functionality, not the copyright material. This should be a no-brainer in court.
Think about it.. what these rip-off toner companies are doing is equivalent to cracking smartcards on subscription digital TV.
Nonsense! Accessing cable TV broadcasts that you haven't paid for is totally unrelated to putting new ink cartridges in your printer! You own the printer, you own (a copy of) the software that authenticates cartridges, so you can make that copy of the software do anything you want it to, so long as you aren't violating copyright by distributing or copying the software. It's exactly the same situation as if General Motors made their cars only to use GM-brand Motion Lotion (TM), and stopped anyone else making compatible fuel.
I was browsing around a Delphi executable file, and found a hod load of HTML that I had been working on earlier that day. The thing that pissed me off most was that all that junk that could have been zeros made the file less compressable than if it were, and we were distributing software over 19.2kbps serial connections at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
they've started sueing everyone. That's a sure sign of a failing business.
until they start embedding them in tyres as well.
There are similarities, but this is a much more advanced and generic system. The Itsy is just a photo viewer, this is an entire virtual desktop on a handheld.
The slashdot effect of a comment is considerably less than the front page, and your system seems to be holding up fine. Im getting 70k/sec.
Big creatures don't evolve much.
To adapt to a repidly-changing environment, you need a rapid turnover of new generations. Whales won't evolve their legs back again, they don't have the time to do it. Some other, smaller sea-creature will take up that niche. Maybe it'll then evolve to be really big.
Two stories about the evolution of flight in a row? Who'd'a thought it?
The IMB case might have wings, but Apple stopping MS for making something similar? Maybe if it wan Mac software, but a modern-day Ransom Olds couldn't stop Henry Ford just because he's making something that is functionally similar. Nonetheless, I think both this and the Lexmark suit are going to sink.
If those countries learn from the US experience (Lexmark, Chamberlain) and formulate their DMCA-like law so that it is less open to this kind of abuse, then there is a commercial advantage to basing your reverse-engineering business in those countries.
And MALP? never mind, found it.
That always confused me on Stargate - what the hell did GDO stand for? Now it all makes sense.
That's not really a fair comparison, as movies have a much shorter shelf-life than albums, and there's more of a 'must see' thing around the big movies that get all the publicity. That is, you get a few huge blockbuster movies that sell in the multi-millions, whereas you get a larger number of albums that sell just a few million each.
"a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" is the exact wording.
It's not the ink that is the centre of Lexmark's case, but the software that authenticates the refills. Lexmark claim that the fake chips "access" the software, therefore break the DMCA. However, "access" in copyright law means acquiring a copy of the protected work. They're abusing the wording of the law.
They're claiming it's a copyright violation, just so that they can invoke the DMCA. It isn't a copyright violation - and that's important in this instance. Whether an actual copyright violation would be of any use to anyone is beside the point.
No, I meant "They must mean 800x600, or at leas 800x480".
With the cable box, you are modifying it in such a way that copyright infringement occurs, i.e. you get access to programmes that you haven't paid for. Using a non-Lexmark toner cartridge is not copyright infringement.
You write as if I am in favour of Lexmark's activities. I must have been insufficiently clear - I was just pointing out that the analogy was broken.
DeCSS is used to create an unencrypted copy of the movie. Executing code is not protected by the DMCA. Providing access to a copyrighted work is - and "access" has a very specific meaning in copyright law. A meaning that makes a mockery of the DeCSS case, mind you, but that's another issue. Hang on, no it isn't - the DeCSS case hung on a broken interpretation of 'access', so this case might go through by the same logic. It's wrong, though. People should expect to pay a fair price for a printer, and be free to buy their consumables wherever they wish.
Anyone is free to sell a crappy product, that's what the free market is all about. They will survive if their product is worth the money ($5 for a crappy toner cart may be better then $30 for a quality one to some people).
That doesn't involve software, and they are playing with words by saying that the fake chips circumvent a mechanism that protects access to their copyright material, to wit the toner authentication code. The flaw in their theory, IMO, is that it does not provide access to their IP. It doesn't cause the code to be printed out or loaded up the cable into the PC, all it does is cause it to execute an operation that is necessary to the functioning of the printer. It accesses the functionality, not the copyright material. This should be a no-brainer in court.
I was browsing around a Delphi executable file, and found a hod load of HTML that I had been working on earlier that day. The thing that pissed me off most was that all that junk that could have been zeros made the file less compressable than if it were, and we were distributing software over 19.2kbps serial connections at the time.