[dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers

[Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/28811.html

Lexmark, like many printer manufacturers has obviously adopted the 
"sell the razor at a loss, but make money on selling blades... Now, a 
printer manufacturer can do a great many things to jumpstart this 
revenue generation, starting with only equipping printers with 
partially full cartridges.

Of course, this is problematic, because a inkjet cartridge can be 
refilled, inexpensively, with ink. So in order to protect this dubious 
marketing decision, the cartridges are equiped with special chips, so 
that only certified (i.e. expensive, proprietary) ink replenishment 
techniques are used.

Similarly, under the guise of stopping piracy, game machines check that 
only certified programs are run.


And the chips are  (or so Lexmark claims) protected by the DMCA. 
Lexmark claims that licensed cartridge manufacturers have signed 
various contracts that forbid ink replenishment. Thus the printer 
checks the contract (chip), and assumes that if the chip responds 
properly, the cartridge inks and components are properly licenced-- 
i.e. making Lexmark a lot of money, No contract-- no ink.

In the past, we were free to ignore unenforceable, laughable contracts. 
The DMCA puts a lawyer in our electronic devices, pushing such 
contracts in our faces.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/28811.html

Jeremy