[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers
- From: mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:01:04 -0500
- References: <OF54B7A68A.0A91477D-ON88256CAA.00786F6E@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
They bundled a copyrighted work into the cartridge. I think that they
called it a "toner authentication program" or something like that.
Either that, or they bundled a TPM into the cartridge, and it controlled
access to a copyrighted program in the printer.
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Lexmark seems to have missed the fact that the DMCA controls access to
> copyrighted works. How the ink in a inkjet cartridge is a copyrighted
> work seems to have escaped Lexmark and the federal district court in
> Lexington, Kentucky but presumably this was a preliminary injunction
> to give the judge time to read the case (I only hope when he does he
> blasts the Lexmark lawyers)
> *Jeremy Erwin <firstname.lastname@example.org>*
> Sent by: email@example.com
> 01/10/2003 01:25 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark
> 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.