Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Printer News Your Rights Online

DMCA Limited by Sixth Circuit Appeals Court 379

Posted by timothy from the they-were-just-trolling-anyhow dept.
katharsis83 writes "Ars Technica and others are reporting that the Sixth Circuit Court has ruled against Lexmark in their lawsuit against a generic ink manufacturer. Here is a link to the ruling (EFF Website)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DMCA Limited by Sixth Circuit Appeals Court More

DMCA Limited by Sixth Circuit Appeals Court

Comments Filter:
  • DUPE?????

  • Thats good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Orgazmus ( 761208 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:23PM (#10637615)
    Atleast someone is using their head :)

    I really dont know why a printer manufacturer should have exclusive rights on producing ink that work with their printers.
    That is like giving sony exclusive rights on the frequencies on their remote controls
    • I always thought the Lexmark case was one of the worst abuses of the DMCA ever. They might as well be trying to make proprietary PAPER. And frankly, those damn ink cartridges cost a mint.

      Hopefully we'll see some high quality knock offs and the price will go down.

      This is my 666th post. Too much /., too much by far.

    • Re:Thats good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:07PM (#10637890)
      I really dont know why a printer manufacturer should have exclusive rights on producing ink
      They shouldn't, but printer manufacturers want to "give us the razor and sell us the blades". You can buy a cheap ink-jet printer and spend MORE on the first set of replacement inks then the original printer. It makes the printer a throw away printer if you don't want to spend the money on the ink. The only problem is that most new ink-jets come with a "preview" cartridge that has a very small amount of ink. The printer manufacturers want you to go out in a month tops and pay more for the ink then for the printer.

      I am actually very shocked by this ruling. It looks like we Americans still have at least ONE branch of governemt that is working "For The People". The rest have all sold out to big business.

      • Please drop the childish nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

        by crucini ( 98210 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:37PM (#10638501)
        I absolutely hate this kind of comment:
        I am actually very shocked by this ruling. It looks like we Americans still have at least ONE branch of governemt that is working "For The People". The rest have all sold out to big business.

        The court ruled on the law. They decided that Lexmark was stretching the DMCA beyond what Congress intended. It has nothing to with being for or against "the people".

        If Congress had written the DMCA to support this scenario, the court would probably have upheld it.

  • Great news. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:23PM (#10637617) Homepage Journal

    It's about time the "give them the razors, sell them the blades" approach the printer companies have taken gets a kick in the shorts. They'll still make zillions from selling cartridges but at least one may have the option of refilling or buying 3rd party cartridges.

    Think about it: why do some printer cartridges cost more than a cheap DVD player?
    • I wouldn't mind if that was what they were doing... printers are still quite expensive, though.

      When they start giving printers away free with your first cartridge, then I'm sure few will complain.
      • HP was selling a line of inkjet printers called "Apollo". They actually had them in the front of grocery stores for a short time here (SF Bay Area). They were only $30, but the catch was that the cartridge was only about 1/2 or 2/3rds filled with ink. So when the ink went out, you would spend as much on ink as you did on the printer :-p. I don't if any other company had tried this though.

      • Re:Great news. (Score:2, Informative)

        by wo1verin3 ( 473094 )
        I spent $125cdn on an Epson Style Photo R200.

        2 months later spent $112cdn on new ink.
      • You can get an Epson C84/C86 for less than 89.00 before any rebates. This printer prints color rather well and prints black text at about 16-22 ppm.

        The 12.50 per color carts don't hurt either.
        • And the fact that for most of their printers (well the C82 that I have) you can get very good 3rd party ink for $5 a cartridge, if you don't mind waiting a month for it to arrive, and $7 per color and $15 a black if you want it in 4 days.

          Not to mention that if by any chance this ink clogs up the printer, epson will replace it under warrenty (I mention this as many people claim this is a big problem with 3rd party inks. It has happened to me, about 1/2 the time - but after I get the fixed printer I don't ha
      • Decent printers are expensive. Cheapo Lexmarks are not decent printers.

    • Re:Great news. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Feztaa ( 633745 )
      nevermind the DVD player, why do some ink cartridges cost more than the printer you're buying them for? I've seen that every once in a while, it's cheaper to just buy the printer over and over and over again than it is to buy new cartridges for it.

      • Re:Great news. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by avalys ( 221114 ) *
        No, they tricked you on that too. The included cartridges in most printers are only half-full.

        So, unless the printers cost half as much as a new cartridge, you're still wasting money because you're buying printers twice as often as you would cartridges.
      • a friend of mine does this 3-4 times a year. Buys a printer, 3 months down the road finishes the ink or it dries out. He then goes out and buys the next model up because it's now cheapter than buying 2 cartridges. It's crazy...

    • Re:Great news. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mog007 ( 677810 ) <[Mog007] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:48PM (#10637771)
      From the article "We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies"

      It actully gave me chills. Is the political system of the United States in such a state to be repaired back to the intentions set forth in the Constitution?

      • Re:Great news. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AstroDrabb ( 534369 )

        Is the political system of the United States in such a state to be repaired back to the intentions set forth in the Constitution?

        Sadly, no. It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago. The Judicial branch is all "We" have left. When Judicial branch goes south, it is time to get our rifles and charge the White House.

        • Re:Great news. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by whereiswaldo ( 459052 )

          The judicial branch is definitely not immune to making judgements based on political alignment.

          It's REALLY nice to see Lexmark get their ass kicked. I wrote them a letter way back when this issue was first reported and said I'd throw out my printer and advise against buying one to everyone I know if they didn't back off the DMCA claim. I did just that (and have been advising against them ever since). That's quite a few less bucks in their pocket.

    • Re:Great news. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot AT monkelectric DOT com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:07PM (#10637891)
      And lexmark is by far the worst abuser of this business model. Let me tell you a story:

      I went to my friends house one day and he had a *STACK* of lexmark printers new in the box. I said, "what the hell could you possibly do with 5 printers?" he replies, "I got them on sale for 19.99 each. Thats half the price of ink." He just chucked the printers in the trash after he used the ink they came with.

      Second story, I was at a computer store in southern california here -- and they had lexmark printers for 9.99! No ink! Ink costs, 32$ per cartridge (you need a color and a black and white). Holy crap :)

      I got sick of the ink game. I bought a HP Laserjet 4m+ (the last of the *REALLY* beefy HP printers) for 75$ used. Ive had it for an entire year and haven't used up the toner cartridge it came with.

    • Re:Great news. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LS ( 57954 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:30PM (#10638046) Homepage
      Why? I work for the HP Inkjet division and I'll tell you why HP cartridges are expensive - because they lose money on the printers, the rest of the company is in the red, the devices are becoming a commodity, the competition is driving margins down, and the upper management is greedy, so they compensate by charging outrageous prices for the cartridges and outsourcing work to Beijing, Singapore, and Bangalore.

      LS

      • Re:Great news. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BillyBlaze ( 746775 )
        Do me a favor and tell your boss this: Consumers are smart. How much do the printers cost you? Multiply that by your margin and sell them for that. How much does the ink cost you? Multiply by your margin and sell it for that. That will make your more printers expensive. But consumers are smart! - tell them, "We're not fucking with you like everyone else is - sure the printer's expensive, but the ink is cheap." People will buy it! It's no secret what the printer manufacturers are doing - everyone kn

  • Its about darn time! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acadiel ( 627312 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:24PM (#10637624) Homepage
    Maybe this will make things such as region lockout on videogame consoles, cell phone unlocking services, etc, legal.

    Then again, if you start taking the analogy this far, then you get into a paradox with DVD region encoding.

    Thoughts?
    • DVD region coding has already been ruled uncompetitive in a few regions of the world, so it should just fuck off. But most DVD players by now are multi-region anyway.

    • Re:Its about darn time! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by capnjack41 ( 560306 ) <spam_me@crapola.org> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:17PM (#10637955)
      God only knows why this DVD region locking can happen to begin with. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't (shouldn't) be illegal to circumvent. As Cory Doctorow (an EFF guy) says in a speech to Microsoft about DRM:

      But anticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest in your physical property to their favor. Region-coded DVDs are an example of this: there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them. I can buy a book and throw it in my bag and take it anywhere from Toronto to Timbuktu, and read it wherever I am: I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price.

      http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt [craphound.com]

  • The only good DMCA . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wakejagr ( 781977 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:24PM (#10637625) Journal
    is a struck down DMCA, but this is a start.

  • Copy protection removal tool for legal use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IgD ( 232964 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:25PM (#10637637)
    I've purchased a lot of games like Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam. The problem is you have to put a CD in the drive to play. This really slows down the game and is inconvenient. I'm sure it also adds wear and tear to your CD/DVD drive. Removing the CD check for a legal use is common sense. I bought the game, I'm entitled to use it.

    I'm not interested in piracy. I think it costs more to pirate the game if you factor in time then it would just to buy it.

  • Don't break out the champaign yet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nz_mincemeat ( 192600 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:28PM (#10637647) Homepage
    At least this ruling would deter (mis)application of the DMCA on objects that the consumers actually own.

    Still won't help with the current situation of entertainment media or software though.

    • Re:Don't break out the champaign yet (Score:4, Interesting)

      by corporatemutantninja ( 533295 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:38PM (#10638506)
      While this is a tactical victory, it does mean that it will be harder to completely overturn the DMCA. We (or the EFF...give them money please) will no longer be able to use these sorts of flagrant abuse cases for grounds of rethinking the whole thing.

      Lenin was opposed to trade unions because he was afraid their successes would appease the workers enough that they would lose interest in full revolution. Similar case here, methinks.

  • Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:28PM (#10637649) Homepage Journal
    Not only the right decision, but one that quotes Lawrence Lessig. How cool is that?

  • Can we say wow? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@gmail.3.14com minus pi> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:28PM (#10637650) Homepage Journal
    This really looks promising to make modchips legal in the USA (wow):

    "Generally speaking, "lock-out" codes fall on the functional-idea rather than the original-expression side of the copyright line. Manufacturers of interoperable devices such as computers and software, game consoles and video games, printers and toner cartridges, or automobiles and replacement parts may employ a security system to bar the use of unauthorized components. To "unlock" and permit operation of the primary device (i.e., the computer, the game console, the printer, the car), the component must contain either a certain code sequence or be able to respond appropriately to an authentication process. To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and sc's 'aire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright."

    • Re:Can we say wow? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by alienw ( 585907 )
      Umm, no. This ruling essentially says that the purpose of the lexmark protection is not to protect a copyrighted work, but to restrict access to a printer. The main purpose of a modchip, like it or not, is to pirate games. If you make a modchip that does not let you pirate games, but just lets you play homebrew ones, it might be legal -- but nobody would want it.

      • Re:Can we say wow? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:26PM (#10638022)
        Actually, I think it'd be hard to prove that the main purpose is for pirating, considering the large number of people who hack their xboxes, etc. to use as media servers, etc.

      • This ruling brings to mind the brouhaha over the NES lockout chip (remember the NES?), which prevented independant publishers from creating games for the system, unless they went through Nintendo and paid exorbitant licensing fees. At the time, the courts ruled in favor of Nintendo (which I found surprising, considering the anti-competitive implications). This seems like a very similar case. Could it be the courts of today are slightly more educated about technology?

    • Actually, I would say the opposite is being said here.

      A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

      What this DOES say is that it is legal to reverse engineer the copy protection process in order to get a game YOU authored to run on a console. In other words the "signing" key used to sign games cannot be copyrighted, and it is not considere

      • Re:Can we say wow? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@gmail.3.14com minus pi> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:58PM (#10638246) Homepage Journal
        A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

        Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

        - Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer [lawtechjournal.com], which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
        - Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel [ps2-scene.org])
        - Cheating devices (ex: Game genie [bbc.co.uk] by Galoob)
        - Playing backups [justice.gc.ca]
        - Bypassing region protection [gamesindustry.biz]

        These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

        1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
        2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
        3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
        4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

        As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

        Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

        That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

        This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing [reason.com] and embarassing [homeip.net] people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum [bbc.co.uk] just because someone might stick it under a desk.

  • What's this? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:28PM (#10637654) Homepage
    A judge with his head screwed on right?

    What's next?

    Dogs and cats living together?
    North America having more than two presidential candidates?
    Duke Nuken Forever going gold? And GPL'd?

  • OH NO!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by OccidentalSlashy ( 809265 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:33PM (#10637679)
    Oh...oh my god people....LEXMARK is involved...OH! Ink EVERYWHERE!! Sweet mary moses O'malloy....I...this...just give me a minute. Just give me a...a minute. Wow. Okay, I think I'm ready to handle this. THOSE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES!! WHYY!!!! Why...how could they do this...this day and age...oh, Slashdot, what does this mean....what does it mean....

    oh no, no, no, no....i need a cup of coffee....mooannn..

  • Support your local anti-dmca (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:37PM (#10637710)
    When I heard about this ink/printer suit and the garage door opener I couldn't believe such a law would exist long. However, I'm concerned this ruling does not address the problems with the law itself, and possibly supports it. We need this law struck down, not just ruled against. Get out there and support the EFF [eff.org] and anti-dmca.org [anti-dmca.org]. We need the law repealed before they stick the law in your BIOS and linux becomes and outlaw OS.

  • Great, as far as it goes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mistersooreams ( 811324 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:39PM (#10637717) Homepage

    Of course it's always pleasing when a ruling goes against the DMCA, but we do need to see this small victory in context. Personally I would see this as "one lawsuit too far" in DMCA terms, and the judge has (rightly) nipped it in the bud. But that's a far cry from stemming the tide and actually starting to reverse the creation of the DMCA, which is what we are ultimately pursuing, isn't it?

    So Wahey for this result, and hopefully burning Lexmark's fingers should keep a few of their fellow printer manufacturers away from similar lawsuits. But nevertheless, let's be realistic: this is only a small step in the right direction.

  • To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and sc?s ?aire doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright.

    This seems like it would invalidate the copyright-based argument for including a copyrighted text block (such as a haiku [slashdot.org]) in emails as validation of a trusted source.

  • HIZZAH, Mod chips legal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sPaKr ( 116314 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:42PM (#10637736)
    The article and ruleing go into the fact they at defating the control for interopartion is legal. So if I need a mod chip to boot linux or play my home brew game doesnt that make the mod chip its self legal. INAL but the opionon appears to be opening the door and leading to that the DMCA is vulnerable on several other grounds. Can this be leveraged to for mod chips, tivo hacks, maybe even the broadcast flag it self. Look at me Im drunk with power in burning the DMCA

  • My favorite branch (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nottestuser ( 166818 )
    This is why the judicial branch is my favorite. Sure, they don't always rule the way we geeks would like but at least they try to think instead of just doing what will get them re-elected.

    Executive is the figurehead, legestlative is the mob, judicial is the sanity. Sometimes.
  • You just gotta love reading this ruling, it actually makes me feel intelligent.

    Before the printer runs the Toner Loading Program, it performs a "checksum operation," a "commonly used technique" to ensure the "integrity" of the data downloaded from the toner cartridge microchip.

    Of course, you don't have to "understand" every piece of information presented in the ruling, but "understanding" what is written is a very "commonly used technique" to insure the "integrity" of communicating in the English language.

  • bnetd? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sheetsda ( 230887 ) <doug.sheets@gmUU ... inus threevowels> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:51PM (#10637789)
    How does this decision relate to the bnetd case [slashdot.org]?

    from the page's decision quote: "companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program."

    It says specifically "manufactured goods", but overall bnetd seems to have been the same thing.
    • I read bnetd as being primarily about the enforceability of Blizzard's EULA, which was a resounding win for Blizzard (in part because the defendants stipulated that they had agreed to it, meaning it was an uncontestable fact -- they tied the judge's hands! I can't help but question the quality of their legal representation). DMCA was less of an issue there; Blizzard was just throwing a number of things at bnetd to hope at least one of them would stick (if they couldn't string bnet up on EULA-violation the

  • Wow (Score:2, Informative)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
    Just Four Hours Forty Five minutes [slashdot.org] since this was first posted.

    I understand a Dupe from 5 months ago, but come on now.

    LK

  • Don't get your hopes up... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shaneh0 ( 624603 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:55PM (#10637815)
    This case is pretty clear, in my opinion, and I doubt the Supreme Court would hear it even if Lexmark does appeal, which I don't think they will.

    But the DMCA won't really be tested until it's challenged in front of the Supreme Court, which has a tendency of leaning towards business interests in property disputes.

    One glimmer of hope is that the sixth circuit is 2/3 conservative, more resembling the high court then the liberal Ninth or Neo-Con Fourth. That might explain why it has the second best overturn record in the past 10 years, and it might mean that there's hope for our cause after all.

    This is one more reason the election next week matters. One more republican-appointed justice and you will see a sea change in our nations judiciary. Roe v. Wade (The right to have an abortion) gets most the press, but things like DCMA will be affected just as much.

  • Lexmark doing crap like this has caused them to lose some sales. I switched over to Epson because of crap like this and so have others I do work for.

  • Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:59PM (#10637842)
    Anyone else read the partially dissenting opinion?

    Judge Feikens claimed that, because Lexmark admitted that there was a "magic bit" that would turn off the TLP sequence, that SCC should have found it.

    This really presumes that they knew that there even was a "magic bit" in the first place.

    This is, IMO, insane. Without apriori knowledge of the existance of a bit even existing, how were they supposed to have found it?!?

    Other people might look at this as a victory against the DMCA, but I, for one, don't think that the judge who could have written that dissenting opinion still being a seated judge, able to hear future DMCA cases, using the same flawed logic, counts as a victory.

    Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.

    -- Terry

    • Unfortunately, the position is appointed and not elected, so it's not like we're going to get rid of him as easily as voting someone else into office instead.

      Are you serious? The fact that it's an appointed position is the only reason the whole bank of judges wasn't as incompetent has him. At least judges have time to at least read what they're working on. The people who pass these laws are so busy keeping their eyes on the polls that they make this guy look enlightened.

  • I only work from my computer screen.

    Someone wants a hardcopy? I email it to them. "It's faster this way, don't you think?"

    Fax request? I use a fax-modem.

    I love passing the printing buck to someone else.

  • Is this anything like.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:24PM (#10638012) Homepage
    This [slashdot.org]:

    Posted by michael on 10-26-04 16:45
    from the morning-in-america dept.
    EvanKai writes "Jason Schultz writes [typepad.com], "This just in --- Static Control Corp. has won its appeal against Lexmark over the right to produce after-market replacement cartridges for Lexmark printers." You can find a PDF of the ruling here [typepad.com] and more about the case on EFF's site [eff.org]." It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished; this was just a ruling on whether Static Control would be enjoined (prevented) from selling their replacement cartridges while the suit proceeded. The original court issued an injunction, and the Appellate Court felt that Static Control had a good chance of success in court and overturned the injunction. The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.
  • ...so that I can't read it.

    Seriously. Yahoo's web filter blocks EFF.org. And a slate of others that it shouldn't block(such as the Libertarian Party's website [lp.org]).

  • in a bind (Score:4, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:39PM (#10638097) Homepage Journal
    I would print that opinion out, but the ink would cost more than my Lexmark printer.
  • Taking the logic of the decision one step further, any copyright or DCMA protections a manufacturer of a device like the Xbox or the PS2 to lock the owners of those devices into only buying games with the manufacturer's protections in them are not valid either.

  • I hate to say I told you so... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:46PM (#10638136) Homepage Journal
    but I told you so [slashdot.org]. Well, not exactly. But this hacks off one of the abuses of the DMCA: using its protections for stuff that ought to be covered under a patent (if your work is so original as to merit a patent).

    The DMCA was "Copyright fix in the Internet Age, version 1". I expect Version 2 will be coming around shortly. There is a lot of pressure for action:

    • The patent system is broken, so people are trying to use copyright law in its place
    • The RIAA, MPAA, et al want piracy made a capital felony (it seems)
    • The blogs are taking over the role of news source from the mainscam media
    • Courts are getting smarter
    • Open Source principles are at work in business, as the dotcom bubble has given way to the network age
    • Politicians see the power of free information, especially in the way it affects their ability to campaign
    In short, we're all more sophisticated and just more used to the impact of technology than when the DMCA was made law in the late 90's. We'll probably be just as short-sighted next time around, but at least this batch of problems will be addressed. I hope.
  • I refuse to purchase a printer that requires ink cartridges that cost over $5. Ink is not that expensive. The cartridges are not that expensive. They're just charging you that much because you don't have a choice if you want to use your printer again. If that rules out all printers (and so far it has) so be it. They're not getting my money. I was disgusted to find that the last printer I bought was $50 and the cardtridges were $30. No one should need an explaination to see that this is just wrong.

  • It just keeps getting better the more I read (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Armethius ( 718200 ) <jtunnell AT utk DOT edu> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:06PM (#10638294)

    It looks like these judges have an exceptional grasp of the technology stifling possibilities inherent in the DMCA. If you look in the concurring opinion you will find this passage:

    I write separately to emphasize that our holding should not be limited to the narrow facts surrounding either the Toner Loading Program or the Printer Engine Program. We should make clear that in the future companies like Lexmark cannot use the DMCA in conjunction with copyright law to create monopolies of manufactured goods for themselves just by tweaking the facts of this case: by, for example, creating a Toner Loading Program that is more complex and "creative" than the one here, or by cutting off other access to the Printer Engine Program. The crucial point is that the DMCA forbids anyone from trafficking in any technology that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [protected] work." 17 U.S.C. 1201(2)(A) (emphasis added). The key question is the "purpose" of the circumvention technology. The microchip in SCC's toner cartridges is intended not to reap any benefit from the Toner Loading Program - SCC's microchip is not designed to measure toner levels - but only for the purpose of making SCC's competing toner cartridges work with printers manufactured by Lexmark.

    Not only did they smack down Lexmark in this abuse of the DMCA's (and copyright's) provisions, but they go so far as to state that the DMCA should be read to not apply to companies aiming to create a monopoly not supported by law.

    I only wish this was a SCOTUS ruling instead of a Circuit ruling. Apparently there are now conflicts with other Circuit rulings.

  • Injuction - (Score:4, Interesting)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:33PM (#10638476) Journal
    I've been following this case [maushammer.com] and glad to hear this. SCC has been prevented from selling [com.com] their product for about 8 months now ... will lexmark have to reimburse them for their lost sales? or, how about customers, who have been deprived of a legal cheaper product?

  • Lasermonks: Low Ink Prices (Score:5, Informative)

    by talon_262 ( 514764 ) <talon_262@NoSpAM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:43PM (#10638537)
    If you don't have a problem with low prices on ink cartridges while supporting a group of Catholic monks in Wisconsin, go here [lasermonks.com] the next time you need to buy an ink cartridge. I've ordered a couple of times from them and haven't had any problems with the ordering process or with their products. With them, I get my Epson Stylus C60 cartridges for about 1/4-1/3 the price of the Epson OEM cartridges at local stores.

    They also seem to think very highly of /., because they carry a /. banner at the bottom of their home page referring back to a thread about them here earlier this year (in which I had originally heard about them).

  • A great quote (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:52PM (#10638592)
    From the ruling:

    "Franklin Computer, 714 F.2d 1240, and Formula International, 725 F.2d 521, involved copies of Apple's operating system program -- a program whose size and complexity is to the Toner Loading Program what the Sears Tower is to a lamppost."

    Also, what's really great about this ruling is that Lexmark effectively shot themselves in the foot. By making the bytecode of the TLP a prerequisite for making an ink cartridge work (through the use of either a checksum or a CRC, it's not entirely clear which), Lexmark itself makes the TLP uncopyrightable in the context of using that bytecode as a key for making the ink cartridge usable. That is, even if the code *could* be written some other way for the purpose of performing the same computations that the TLP does, it only works if the checksum requirement is met, meaning that the code pretty much has to be the way it is. (See pages 11-12 in the ruling.)

  • Pinch me please (Score:3, Funny)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:23PM (#10638779)
    Based on the events of the day, I am conviced that I am simply dreaming.

    Evidence #1: Federal court issues a very common-sense interpretation the badly-abused DMCA and limits this abuse.

    Evidence #2: The Red Sox are about to win a World Series.

  • Applicability to DECSS?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:42AM (#10639192) Homepage Journal
    If you read the second-last page of the decision [eff.org], it appears to be a dissenting opinion, but it brings up some good points that would seem to apply to the DECSS case:

    The DMCA defines "circumventing a technological measure" to mean avoid, bypass, etc., "a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." 17 U.S.C. sect 1201(a)(3)(A)(emphasis by judge). Therefore, under the plain meaning of the law, circumventing a technological measure is only a violation of sect 1201(a) if the device allows consumers access to a work that they are not otherwise permitted to have.
    .....
    If this language of the statute were not enough, it is clear from the legislative history that Congress did not intend this provision to apply to devices that merely facilitated legitimate access. ..... The aim of sect 1201(b) was to restrict devices used primarily for piracy, and not those that facilitate legal use of products.

    What can I say: I like the idea of Linux DVD players.

  • These DMCA articles are comforting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:49AM (#10639793)
    They take me back to a time pre 9/11, when the DMCA was the biggest problem on my radar. Such a warm and comforting time when I think about it now.

    I mean, imagine back to living in a USA where your biggest concern is a law about copying software and recharging ink cartridges.

    Seems like utopia compared to the world we're now in.

  • Buy a laser :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NoMercy ( 105420 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:30AM (#10640111)
    There more expensive, can't print color photos as well as you would like, but they will run for 5000-10000 pages before needing a new toner cartridge, the ink can't dry up any more than it is, and it doesn't do a 'head cleaning' which dumps 1/2 the ink into a large sponge at the bottom of the printer every time you switch it on :)

  • great quote from the decision... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ecklesweb ( 713901 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @08:19AM (#10640844)
    Apple's operating system program--a program whose size and complexity is to the Toner Loading Program what the Sears Tower is to a lamppost

  • Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freality ( 324306 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @10:30AM (#10642240) Homepage Journal
    so, since "lock out" mechanisms (like DVD copy locks) are of a necessary form and function, they are ideas and not non-functional expression, and so are the proper domain of patent, not copyright, and so the DMCA can't extend copyright protection to them. Wham-bam-thank-you-m'am.

    Next question, where does this leave the same mechanism if it were protected by patent?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close