can we sue keyboard producers now?

[sysKin]

Hi

As I just read in the news, new "non-copyable" CDs arrived. The "protection" looks like the lamest ever - it's an autostart proggy that runs when you put the CD to a windows-based computer (let me just copy the link from news page: http://www.p2pnet.net/article/8323 )

The easiest way to remove the protection is to press the Shift key to disable autostart. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this makes the Shift key a protection-cracker! As far as I understand US law, the Shift button is illegal now, and all manufacturers responsible for producing it are offenders. I mean come on, they're making TWO of them in each keyboard - just to mock the good RIAA people, probably.

Isn't this the time to sue them?

Radek

[Wilbert]

Why not sue Microsoft? After all, it's their fault that you can disable autostart. It would be a nice battle, RIAA vs Microsoft :)

[trbarry]

A CDRom or DVDRom drive is not just for running programs but also for reading data. So it really seems like a severe security weakness to have programs automatically run just by putting a disc in the drive. I often want to first browse a disc before actually doing anything else with it.

And I don't trust the contents of many discs, including miscellenous discs from forgotten sources and some of those from MPAA or RIAA members. Representatives of these companies have made various statements that it is okay to report the contents of your computer or even sabotoge systems containing material thought to be violating copyrights. So I really don't want to run their programs on my machines any more than needed.

And even discs from trusted sources occasionally contain viruses.

For those reasons I usually keep auto-insert notification turned off on my machines.

- Tom

[wmansir]

Am I the only one who thought the typo in the thread title was going to be related to the story?

[Arky]

:D

[Doom9]

actually, the RIAA is already preparing to file suit and get temporary injunctions against any keyboard maker that has a model with a shift key in their product line. That also includes notebook makers and even software makers that offer a virtual keyboard (so for instance Microsoft with their Pocket PC / Windows Mobile operating system). Soon, we'll no longer be able to use capital letters because those temporary injuctions will be granted swiftly under the DMCA. Finally we no longer have to worry about what words to start with capital letters, and we can get rid of a whole series of special characters as well. Good news all around, isn't it?

[communist]

Hilarious :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Blimey!

What happens when computers with decent voice activation arrive?

Will I still be able to speak the word 'shift', or will this be banned too?

Cheers

[Doom9]

Will I still be able to speak the word 'shift', or will this be banned too?
Since this could be used to circumvent a copy protection mechanism, every voice recognition software has to be programmed as to not recognize the word shift in any known language and dialect. Whether writing shift and shift operations in computing (be it in programming languages or CPU internal operations) is as of yet not known but the RIAA's legal team is already looking into that.
I'll keep you posted ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Thanks Doom9

In the mean time I'm gonna think up some new words for 'shift'!

Cheers

[GIR]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33322.html

I'm speechless, no wait I got something, they want to sue someone for pointing out a feature of an operating system that was made back in 1995?!?

[LordDethstar]

This "copy protection" is amusing. After reading the description a while ago, I would have thought that it was implemented using autorun. Then I thought "no, they can't be that stupid". "Nobody would implement a copy protection like that..."
And now here we are, and they implemented it exactly like that. :rolleyes:

[nFury8]

originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
In the mean time I'm gonna think up some new words for 'shift'!
Considering the whole mess, just take out the letter 'f', and you've got your new word. :)

[erbuk]

This also means that regedit and the control panel in windows are illegal software since they can be used to turn off autoplay :D

[Doom9]

@erbuk: you are correct... the RIAA legal team is happy to accept any other ideas on what they could go after next ;)

From the Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/newswire/2003/10/09/rtr1105123.html) SunnComm alleged Halderman violated criminal provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in disclosing the existence of those driver files.
I think that means we have to get rid of any program hat can show what files are contained on any medium now. Explorer, any browser software capable of browsing local HDs, any file explorer, heck even basic OS commands like cd and dir are now illegal. It gets even better... OS API commands are now also illegal because they can be used to find out what files there are on a medium. Goodbye fopen & co, welcome to riaa-fopen. Basically, every operating system is illegal. Now I wonder if mice and screens are also illegal because they can be used to navigate a directory tree, and display files your not supposed to see. Heck, if we're at it, why don't we acid out our auditory and visual tract so that we are sure to never again be able to see or listen to anything that could potentially be illegal.
God, I think I'm going to get my army rifle and shoot myself just to be on the safe side.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Doom9
... God, I think I'm going to get my army rifle and shoot myself just to be on the safe side. Is that legal?

[bilu]

The guy should counter-sue them.

What is he being accused?? Using a public, standard, documented for years keyboard technique??

How about accusing Microsoft in this case:

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4755

of enabling the use of Ctrl-Alt-Del combination on Windows to circunvent their liability problem?


Or maybe accuse car manufacturers for using gasoline and polluting the air :rolleyes:

EDIT: Maybe someone could sue MPAA/RIAA for negligence. After all, they released a weak security on DVD's that can't protect our DVDs/CDs from being copied :sly:


Bilu

[trbarry]

Actually it sound like Halderman would not at all mind being sued.

From the CNET news story (http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5089168.html?tag=cd_top)

Halderman said he's not overly worried about the legal threat. The EFF represented his advisor, Princeton professor Edward Felten, in a lawsuit dealing with academic freedom to publish computer security information, and Princeton University supported Felten in that case.

It sounds like Halderman knows what he is doing and has Edward Felten's experiance and contacts to rely on. With the EFF supporting it and being an obviously silly case this is one I would love to see all the way to the Supreme Court. ;)

- Tom

PS - I wonder if my diatribe above about disabling autorun also violates the DMCA?

[bilu]

shhh.... don't use the ****run word! :eek:

[trbarry]

Back in the day ...

say maybe in the early 1980's, software used to be mostly distributed on floppies. For the most part viruses were also mostly distributed on floppies. So you knew that if you engaged in unsafe computing practice and inserted a floppy disk into your drive without the little plastic protective cover then bad things could happen and you could get infected.

But at least at that time it was (mostly) safe to at least put a disk in the drive and look at the contents to see what it was. You had to worry about some ascii escape sequences in file names and you had to be sure not to leave the stupid disk in the drive before you next rebooted. But otherwise it was fairly safe. Just don't run the darn programs on it.

But autorun does exactly the wrong thing from a virus and security standpoint. I don't even know if things like Norton Security protect against autorun programs. Do they? Does anything get scanned on insert before execution?

Whoever came up with the idea that people should exchange programs as casually and frivolously as we exchange data obviously gave no thought to security. It is the distinction between whether I might be willing to listen to what your say and whether I would be willing to blindly follow your commands. They are two completely different levels of trust.

And now that we even have large well known companies (legally) distributing items that encumber our machines this is doubly true.

How many of us would happily comply if we got a free disc in the mail from the MPAA or RIAA that said "Insert Me"? ;)

Autorun sucks, and should be abolished.

</rant>

- Tom

[tiki4]

This is all so grotesque...

tiki4

[Doom9]

Is that legal?Well, I don't see any provision in the DMCA that would cover this, so my family would not have to worry about lawsuits when I'm gone.
Anyway, what's the organization that has to collect data about the DMCA use? It has something to do with libraries.. that is definitely a story to put in their books. Hopefully, one not too far day politicians will stop worrying about their RIAA dollars and see the ridiculousness of the law they have passed and do something against it.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Why not sue Microsoft? After all, it's their fault that you can disable autostart. It would be a nice battle, RIAA vs Microsoft :)

That would be one of those fights you hope is very bloody. Great entertainment.

[trbarry]

Sunncomm wisely retreats. ;)

SunnComm won't sue grad student (http://news.com.com/2001-1023_3-0.html) (Cnet News)

- Tom

[markrb]

I don't know. Maybe it would be fun to watch the RIAA try to do something that the goverment couldn't do and Sue Microsoft successfully. One Monopoloy fighting another monopoloy.
They end up canceling each other out spending millions on legal fee's and in the end Linux, Apple or some OS nobody has ever heard of becomes the leading OS after MS goes bankrupt and all music has to be downloaded as all the RIAA members go under.

One can only hope.

Then again Godzilla might hit Tokyo again.

Mark

[alexnoe]

So it really seems like a severe security weakness to have programs automatically run just by putting a disc in the drive. This is BTW 'computer sabotage' according to current german law, which is punished with 1-2 years of jail...so if they sell that here, they might run into trouble :D

[trbarry]

I once thought it would be illegal under the USA Computer Crimes Act (something like that) but on a more careful reading it might only apply to machines used in interstate commerce. I'm not sure whether home users are really fair game or not.

Just in case maybe everyone should mail order at least one thing from an Internet vendor in a different state and keep the records on that machine.

- Tom (not a lawyer)

[mpucoder]

I'm with trbarry - I disable auto-insert notification on all my machines. Does that mean that I intended to defeat this lame protection software prior to its inception? That would indicate forethought of malice, not to mention prophecy.

The least they could have done was encrypt the CD, and therefore require the software to decrypt and play the music. Of course, that would mean it was unplayable on a CD or DVD player. But what they have is a program that might get installed and insist on calling it a copy protection mechanism. Is there also a Mac, Linux, and DOS version of the software? If not, would copying it on DOS (yes, entirely possible) be illegal? What a joke.

In the old days when an idiot published something it was considered good taste to debunk him. Now an idiot can publish software and sue someone for disclosing its glaring weakness - and claim money damages (which resulted from stockholders realizing SunnComm are idiots)

[Mug Funky]

totally. that's the root of a lot of the RIAA's actions.

you _cannot_ sue because you made a mistake. it's not right.

if i bought a million shares in sunncomm, it's just my bad luck that i'd have lost a lot of money. in a case like that i'd have to accept it and get on with life.

you can't sue a pokie (slot machine) venue for lost income. you take a risk and it doesn't pay off, then tough luck.

but what we have with this abuse of the DMCA (what i consider a callous and naive, but not necessarily malicious law) is big companies suing the publice for their own mistakes.

it's like a bank suddenly taking all your money, saying they had accidentally been giving your account too much interest these past 10 years... (actually, i can see this happening with my bank if i really had decent interest)