DRM Tech Could Keep Consumers From Utilizing New Copyright Exemptions
The Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office added exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that will allow consumers and outside repair technicians to hack the embedded personal devices for maintenance or repair purposes. Still, getting around the code might not be so easy.
October 30, 2018 at 12:00 PM
3 minute read
|
There's always a catch. Last week, The Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office adopted exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that would make it legal for consumers or their conscripted repair experts to hack the embedded software on personal devices for maintenance or repair purposes—you know, if they're up to the challenge.
Making it permissible to hack smartphones, smart appliances or a car isn't exactly the same thing as making it easier. As digital rights management technology that restricts the use of proprietary hardware becomes increasingly sophisticated, this latest development in copyright law may amount to little more than a distinction without a difference.
“The difficulty is trying to hack into the code,” Richard Raysman, a partner at Holland & Knight specializing in computer law, said. “Companies, technologically, can make it really difficult to actually get into the code. So even though consumers and repair shops now have this right and this new rule making coming out of the Copyright Office, it doesn't mean that they'll actually be able to get into the code.”
Manufacturers don't exactly have much incentive to make breaking into their own products any easier, either. Congress enacted the DMCA back in 1998, and with it prohibited the “circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright.” Cracking open the doors to outside repair and maintenance could potentially ease the stranglehold that companies have long held over those services.
“In the past, the manufacturer may have been able to shut (third parties) down. I don't think the manufacturers would have gone after consumers who were trying to fix their own phones. I think this really applies more to independent repair shops that might be repairing things,” Raysman said.
Users who don't live in the vicinity of a manufacturer now have the option of consulting a third party that is more conveniently located or priced, but they might still wind up running on a hamster wheel of ever-escalating code.
The regulations passed by the Copyright Office don't require companies to water down their encryption or provide the keys to the door. Raysman said another disincentive for consumers might be manufacturers who refuse to repair a device following an unsuccessfully first attempt by an outside vendor.
Companies deciding to challenge the new regulations directly in court also isn't entirely out of the question. Raysman said manufacturers could potentially try and argue that allowing consumers or repair professionals to hop the digital gates threatens trade secrets—but even that is riskier than just rolling up their sleeves and writing a burlier set of code.
“Probably the easier way for a manufacturer to try to circumvent the rights extended by this new regulation would just be to make it more difficult to get into the software,” Raysman said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250