4 ms·

Luckily anti-circumvention has been found to only apply to protection of copywritten works. There's probably a legally safe way. See how lexmark tried to sue

Luckily anti-circumvention has been found to only apply to protection of copywritten works. There's probably a legally safe way. See how lexmark tried to sue about chip protected toner cartridges using the DMCA and got slapped down by the courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v.....

kmeisthax 5y ago
That's only one part of the problem, though. While it's great that the Sixth Circuit smacked down Lexmark here, the ruling is specific to the way that particular Lexmark printer worked - the small program on the toner cartridges they used to make a DMCA claim did not actually have any DRM on it, and the copyrightability of the program itself was marginal at best. If you built a printer where most, if not all of it's firmware existed on the ink or toner cartridges, then you could wield software copyright far more effectively here. You could have the printer wipe each cartridge when it's spent, so that it actually doesn't know how to print anything until you install a fresh cartridge. Copying the cartridge data would be copyright infringement, and resetting the chip would be a DMCA 1201 violation, because the print count is actually a licensing mechanism here. One might argue that you could reimplement the printing firmware. However, this poses several practical problems: - Reimplementing the firmware without infringing upon it requires detailed legal analysis and internal discipline regarding code copying. You don't strictly need to do clean-room, but most engineers have such a bad idea of how copyright works that it's probably advisable. Furthermore, you will almost certainly be sued for doing so and will need to explain yourself to a judge, which will cost millions and millions of dollars. - Printers running reimplemented firmware may malfunction or break, which would void the warranty. (Granted, that probably doesn't mean much, but large business customers will care) - The printer could be designed with secure boot features to refuse loading alternative firmware. While these may be circumventable, you're now distributing DMCA 1201 circumvention tools and will need to make some very legally specious arguments as to why you think it's OK to do so. All of this costs lots of developer-hours in order to do and poses business risks. This also multiplies for each printer model - it's not like companies specifically design interchangeable ink cartridges and firmware, after all. Companies could specialize in this, of course, but one mistake will be fatal. In fact, even if we repealed DMCA 1201, many of these risks would remain. While I admire the hacker ethic of breaking DRM, I don't think most businesses would actually go about doing so if such things were legalized. There's all sorts of ridiculously anti-consumer shit out there that companies haven't tried yet, and would be very expensive to break. What we need is a law that puts positive obligations on DRM vendors to provide unlock tools for lawful purposes, and court rulings that make misusing DRM to co-mingle copyright and non-copyright concerns (e.g. "you can't use our printer software without buying our ink") into a form of copyright abuse.
- monocasa 5y ago
  In this case it's not loading most of the firmware off of the cart. RFID tags max out at the kbit range.
  - ajb 5y ago
    They do, but there are also RFID tags that contain a microcontroller that can power external components from RF power, so potentially you could embed up with one that has an external flash chip (probably wouldn't have enough power do do a write, but maybe could still read it) Edited to add: for example, the LPC8N04
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  You're able to reverse engineer and duplicate for form, fit, and function. If it has to do a certain thing to work in the thing you bought you're clear.
dusted 5y ago
I wonder what happened if they hired some author to write an original piece, and put that on eprom in their cartridges, and then have the printer verify that piece.. then an alternative toner would have to copy this copyrighted work to make it work ?
- monocasa 5y ago
  In the past, the courts haven't looked too fondly on that, but it hasn't been tried since the mid 90s AFAIK.

kmeisthax 5y ago

That's only one part of the problem, though. While it's great that the Sixth Circuit smacked down Lexmark here, the ruling is specific to the way that particular Lexmark printer worked - the small program on the toner cartridges they used to make a DMCA claim did not actually have any DRM on it, and the copyrightability of the program itself was marginal at best. If you built a printer where most, if not all of it's firmware existed on the ink or toner cartridges, then you could wield software copyright far more effectively here. You could have the printer wipe each cartridge when it's spent, so that it actually doesn't know how to print anything until you install a fresh cartridge. Copying the cartridge data would be copyright infringement, and resetting the chip would be a DMCA 1201 violation, because the print count is actually a licensing mechanism here. One might argue that you could reimplement the printing firmware. However, this poses several practical problems: - Reimplementing the firmware without infringing upon it requires detailed legal analysis and internal discipline regarding code copying. You don't strictly need to do clean-room, but most engineers have such a bad idea of how copyright works that it's probably advisable. Furthermore, you will almost certainly be sued for doing so and will need to explain yourself to a judge, which will cost millions and millions of dollars. - Printers running reimplemented firmware may malfunction or break, which would void the warranty. (Granted, that probably doesn't mean much, but large business customers will care) - The printer could be designed with secure boot features to refuse loading alternative firmware. While these may be circumventable, you're now distributing DMCA 1201 circumvention tools and will need to make some very legally specious arguments as to why you think it's OK to do so. All of this costs lots of developer-hours in order to do and poses business risks. This also multiplies for each printer model - it's not like companies specifically design interchangeable ink cartridges and firmware, after all. Companies could specialize in this, of course, but one mistake will be fatal. In fact, even if we repealed DMCA 1201, many of these risks would remain. While I admire the hacker ethic of breaking DRM, I don't think most businesses would actually go about doing so if such things were legalized. There's all sorts of ridiculously anti-consumer shit out there that companies haven't tried yet, and would be very expensive to break. What we need is a law that puts positive obligations on DRM vendors to provide unlock tools for lawful purposes, and court rulings that make misusing DRM to co-mingle copyright and non-copyright concerns (e.g. "you can't use our printer software without buying our ink") into a form of copyright abuse.

monocasa 5y ago
In this case it's not loading most of the firmware off of the cart. RFID tags max out at the kbit range.
- ajb 5y ago
  They do, but there are also RFID tags that contain a microcontroller that can power external components from RF power, so potentially you could embed up with one that has an external flash chip (probably wouldn't have enough power do do a write, but maybe could still read it) Edited to add: for example, the LPC8N04
R0b0t1 5y ago
You're able to reverse engineer and duplicate for form, fit, and function. If it has to do a certain thing to work in the thing you bought you're clear.

dusted 5y ago

I wonder what happened if they hired some author to write an original piece, and put that on eprom in their cartridges, and then have the printer verify that piece.. then an alternative toner would have to copy this copyrighted work to make it work ?

monocasa 5y ago
In the past, the courts haven't looked too fondly on that, but it hasn't been tried since the mid 90s AFAIK.