I don't remember who (.002?) made the observation before that CSS is the hook to get the DMCA in play where otherwise nothing would be of issue. Lexmark has taken the same approach
1. Does this fit any of the LOC submitted requests for circumvention. The LOC isn't accepting new comments but if there is one where this applies, then a reply comment could be written that "blah blah blah has made a good point. In fact in the last month the well known company "Lexmark" has done the following. Circumvention of the printer cartridge or disabling of the software in the printer is needed to maintain operability and to use my printer.
2. Has anyone found a way to do the circumvention in either the cartridge or the printer? That could be another posterchild case!
mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
01/10/2003 03:01 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark printers
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.
Mickey
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 <jerwin@ponymail.com>*
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
> 01/10/2003 01:25 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> cc:
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] more dmca nonsense--Lexmark
> printers
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>