🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:


> Bill Unruh wrote:

>> The other case is Lexmark vs the toner recycler, who cloned the chip on the
>> Lexmark cartridges, and was brought to court under DCMA since Lexmark
>> argued that they must have evaded copy control devices in order to copy the
>> chip.

> Not however a case that justifies the claim that the expression "results 
> in" had been given a wide intepretation, which was the issue of 
> relevance being discussed.

But you are missing the overall trend here... these laws are built for a
particular purpose, they aren't just collections of words that need study
in abstract detachment. The various cases we have seen in the USA are
exactly what we would expect to happen right here.

>> The DCMA is just a very very bad law, which the US companies are trying to
>> get adopted around the world. 

> The Lexmark case is an example of one where a company is using a 
> technological approach to support a particular business model (cheap 
> printers, but expensive catridges, I presume).

Yes, there is a lot of market competition in the price of printers but
once someone has a printer, they have to keep buying cartridges.

> They're using the DCMA to 
> protect their technology which stands up only because as current 
> expressed, it protects technologies whose purpose is to prevent 
> examination of software code rather than to prevent copying of it.

Mostly it stands up because the US courts (especially the lower courts)
have a very pro-big-business attitude. The higher courts will sway as
the government can push them but the current governments of both US
and Australia are also supporting big business so it is only sensible
to expect some similar sentiment in the courts.

> However, the DMCA is not always required. Microsoft's XBox requires that 
> software be signed using a private key known only to Microsoft, thus 
> again protecting a business model that probably subsidises the price of 
> the XBox by having a higher price for the software. This mechanism can 
> only defeated either by modchipping (which is probably legal still, but 
> not something most people want to do)

Certainly, it is illegal to distribute mod chips or provide a service
of installing them. Maybe you are right that it is legal to own one
and install it yourself but what would you be willing to bet on the
outcome? If the Microsoft Palladium initiative gets into full swing
then most computers will have similar lockdown.

> or by factorising the private key 
> (which is being attempted, but they've Buckley's hope of success with 
> the current mathematical framework).

More commonly, people find some game that has a buffer-overrun bug
which can be exploited as a way to get additional software to run.
Fortunately, with the X-box it is easy because Microsoft reliably writes
buggy software and there are several weaknesses in the standard
system software that comes along with the machine. However as bugs
are found they get fixed so various generations of X-box have various
mechanisms for getting around the market monopoly. In addition, some
people noted that an X-box connected to the network would automatically
seek to update itself and even delete software that it detected as
foreign (e.g. xbox-linux partitions). I have not seen this first hand
but I've heard reports of it. Someone else might have more info...

> These tethering mechanisms would almost certainly be unlawful if 
> achieved by means of contractual conditions rather than technology. This 
> needs to be addressed directly by the legislatures. Attacking the DMCA 
> only addresses part of that problem.

Quite right, any DMCA equivalent also needs to be attacked,
or at very least, a lot of additional "fair-use" provisions have to
en enshrined such as the ability to have a competitive marketplace.
We really do not need more laws to mess things up even worse, what
we need is less laws, a clarification of existing laws and strict limits
on the application of those laws.

Remeber that the less freedom you have, the less capable you are of
gaining freedom so waiting until things get bad before taking action
is a losing strategy.

	- Tel