Copyright Boss: 'It's Great Mechanics Now Need To Know About Copyright'
from the no,-actually,-it's-not dept
The Copyright Office continues to show that it is completely out of touch and tone deaf to the mess that copyright laws create today. We've talked a few times about how abuses of copyright law have created messes for industries that you might think would never have to deal with copyright on a regular basis. Take, for example, mechanics. What does repairing your car have to do with copyrights? In the past, absolutely nothing. More recently, however, it's been a huge deal. That's because automakers have used copyright to lock up diagnostic codes and information concerning onboard computers. The end result is that car owners are often forced to go to dealers (who are expensive) over independent car repair shops. Independent repair shops who circumvent the digital locks on car computers may be found to be violating the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. As we've noted, this seems like a clear abuse of the DMCA, as it was clearly not designed for such a purpose. Attempts to fix this with "right to repair" legislation have mostly gone nowhere (automakers are powerful lobbyists, and the entertainment industry also doesn't want anything that weakens the anti-circumvention clause).It would be difficult to look on this turn of events in a positive way no matter what angle you might take. It's clearly abusing copyright law beyond its intended purpose. It's limiting competition. It's making life worse for the public and for small businesses. So how could this possibly be spun as a good thing? Leave that to Copyright Office boss Maria Pallante. At a recent conference all about Section 108 of the Copyright Act, she apparently declared (via Copycense, who was in attendance):
"I think it's really great your car mechanic knows about copyright"She similarly argued that a big challenge of copyright law is making it more accessible and suggested it was a good thing that it's "no longer" reserved to experts to deal with copyright law. All of that should actually be seen as a pretty massive problem with the system. As a government-granted monopoly privilege that also has free speech implications, we should want copyright to be very carefully limited and calibrated in a manner that it is not something that enters people's everyday lives, and that it's not an issue that a mechanic should ever need to know about. Those are signs of a completely broken system. They're signs that copyright has expanded massively beyond its basic structure, into a monstrosity, often driven by the nature of technology. When your mechanic needs to be an expert in copyright law just to know if he or she can fix your car it may make Maria Pallante happier, because it seems to validate her job, but it should be seen as a huge problem for the system. A copyright system that is working is one that doesn't trouble totally unrelated professions like mechanics. It's only a broken system that would create serious friction in jobs like that. That the head of the Copyright Office does not realize this is pretty frightening.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright office, maria pallante, mechanics, section 108
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can't we sue?
This isn't something that can be pirated and locking it up does way more harm than good here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't we sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't we sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That way they won't be blasting their radios in the shop allowing people to listen to music without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In both cases the mentality of the insiders is that the public needs education about copyright and it is great that they are learning about IP law. Both instances demonstrate how blind the insiders are about the problems they are causing for the copyright system itself. The insiders can't see that the public is being taught to hate anything to do with copyright and they are actually being educated in methods of circumventing protections. The public is also being taught to avoid dealing with copyright holders if it can be avoided.
It isn't surprising that the copyright office has this perspective considering how interbred they are with RIAA/MPAA lobbyists and attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah yes Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution that was where it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cartorrentz.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cartorrentz.org
Dammit RIAA !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words: What is great is making things worse and thus drawing attention to the problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other words: What is great is making things worse and thus drawing attention to the problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other words: What is great is making things worse and thus drawing attention to the problem!
The last time copyright was made so accessible and public was in late 2001, and then on January 18th, 2012 all those public voices brought an end to SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and the effect might be impacted by whether it is an abridged or unabridged version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike--
Really? Your argument is that a mechanic knowing something about IP is a sign that the system is broken? Cars are very high tech machines, covered by all types of IP. Only you could make such a stupid argument. You're so desperate to find anything wrong with IP. It's hilarious how stupid you come across with idiotic arguments like this. You truly are a fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:10am
Now, grow the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For most people, copyright should not be an obstacle getting in the way of doing the things they'd like to do. And this should be done by reforming the law so that it gets out of their way.
Some people will still need to know about copyright: the librarian, the tv station, the author and publisher, the company that makes the cars, etc. But they're in the business, and more can reasonably be expected of them.
I don't know much about chemistry, but it seems reasonable to me to regulate industry to make sure that I can be protected from toxic materials in my food without my having to become an expert. This is the same sort of deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, his assertion is that a mechanic needing to know something about IP is a sign that the system is broken. In what way is this assertion incorrect?
Yes, so what? You shouldn't have to know the first thing about copyright law in order to repair a car. That's insane.
If you're manufacturing a car, that's a different story -- but this isn't about manufacturing, this is about fixing. In what sane world is it possible to violate IP law by repairing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Doctor (probably Dr. Hibbert): "I'm sorry, but the gene for male pattern baldness has been copyrighted, so I'm afraid I can't remove that stick from your husband's eye."
Patient's Wife: "What?"
Doctor: "Well, if it was in his leg, no problem! But, since it's his head, and that's where he's bald, we're going to have to make a few calls."
Patient (lies there unmoving)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
'Let's see, Mr. Kaskalov, yes, here we go; open heart transplant. Fantastic. Let's see if I can set you up real quick. Just need to contact my IP lawyer for a second, see if I have the rights to the machine and tools I'm using to save your life, and we'll be good to go.
Oh, don't worry. It's not like they can just go 'Naw, you didn't pay up.'..right? Nurse, I did pay the appropiate royalties and everything, right?'
'No, Doctor, you didn't.'
'Welp. Either I'm going to break the law to save your life, or get sued out of business.'
What then happens:
Good Herr Doktor: 'You're on your own pal. Good luck with that failing heart of yours, I'm not going to risk it.'
Bad Herr Doktor: 'Okay, well, whatever. They can sue me all they want, I'm going to save your life and I'm not paying them a DIME for this machine!'
In the future, expect copyright locks, wherein you cannot use the machine you're using, listen to music or drive a car without paying copyright royalties out of the ass, if we let them have their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide me with all relevant information so that I may ensure that the subpoena gets delivered correctly.
Thank you
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is an example from the medical world:
Consider the most commonly used surgical robot which was developed at taxpayer expense by DARPA for battlefield use. The Army decided they didn't want it so a private company now sells the devices for millions of dollars each. The arms of this robot which are stainless steel and don't wear out not anywhere quick enough to suit the company's stockholders, are designed to detect when they enter a human body. After a certain number of passes into the body, the robot is disabled until you pay thousands so you can attach a new piece of equipment for it. The old one, which is just a usable as when you took it new out of the package is thrown away.
Now how do you think this scam is defended? By the DMCA of course. If you hacked their software to circumvent the inactivation process, you would be breaking the law.
It's a perfect example of the monumental waste and expense borne by the public as a result of IP law.
I might add that up to this point, hospitals haven't cared a bit about this kind of thing since they were just passing all of their expenses, along with a hefty markup, on to the insurance companies, or in the unlucky cases - directly to the patients. We will see how much this changes in the next few years since it remains unclear exactly how Obamacare is going to play out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I bet there are tons of life saving procedures locked up due to copyright. We just rarely hear about it because doctors tend to cough up the money and shrug it off as part of being a doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, they are. They have trademarks - a mechanic cannot abuse this by sticking a Goodyear sticker on a Michelin tire. They have patents - there may be some parts that a mechanic can ONLY order from the original manufacturer.
But copyright? Seriously? The mechanic surely is not copying any legitimate creative expression. The car's owner owns the title to the entire car, and that includes the on-board computer. If accessing a car's computer at the request of the owner of the car is illegal, then there is something wrong with the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 11th, 2013 @ 10:10am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Being a mechanic now isn't like it was even 20 years ago. Continuing education is mandatory and the technology involved is advancing ever more rapidly meaning there is more to learn and more expense involved in learning it. I'd rather my mechanic concentrate on fixing my car and not having to worry about whether he should be playing the payola game to do his job. He shouldn't have to be a lawyer or hire a lawyer to be a mechanic or navigate IP laws that are truly the fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, his argument is that a mechanic having to know something about copyright is a sign that the copyright system is broken.
Jeez, can't you read?
"Cars are very high tech machines, covered by all types of IP."
There is very little in the design of a car that should be covered by copyright. Feel free to list the things you think should be.
"Only you could make such a stupid argument."
Well you just misrepresented/misunderstood his argument, so that would make your argument the stupid one.
"You're so desperate to find anything wrong with IP."
Desperation implies it's difficult to find something wrong with IP, but that's ridiculously easy. Every single one of us are bombarded every day with problems caused by modern IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
better off downloading a mechanic-droid from the darknets...
why are The They (tm) so intent on creating the worst philip k dick dystopia ? ? ?
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's Great Mechanics Now Need To Know About Copyright"
C'mon man. Why do you do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have only two words for any copyright moron who thinks this is even CLOSE to logical:
Fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
So by doing this they are shooting themselves in the foot. People (even those with a lot of smart money) look at the true cost of owning a vehicle.
When you force people to pay more to maintain their vehicle you make them less happy. And less likely to buy your model.
I buy new every 3 years. And I pick my vehicles based on features and also cost. All things equalized to a low differentiation factor I will always pick the one with an overall lower cost of ownership.
So let's go at it this way. The cost of the vehicle is 65K. During that 3 years of ownership I will spent above and beyond the loan value 6% or 9% of the purchase price to maintain it properly.
I will always decide to buy on the TCO. Always. And anyone that likes to keep their money looks at it the same way. That 3% is not trivial. Not a huge deal but still not a amount of money I would be willing to drop on the street and forget about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
I spent 3K on my last car, and have probably put another 3K into maintaining it, if that much.
and I've had it for 10 years!
I don't think you're saving money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
I also gave a simplified example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
Mercedes
Jag
Corvette
Cadillac
Some models of Pickups and suvs
BMW
Audi
Porche
and many more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the car companies not know of the World Wide Web?
A new car every three years? That is not someone who likes to keep their money. You have a perpetual loan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OEM abuse of copyright concepts
OEMs have taken to claiming copyright protection for routines that have previously been considered part of the hardware - such as the delivery of engineering changes using microcode and firmware rather than shipping a new part.
As with the auto industry - mechanics and repair providers need access to the "recalls" of the digital world, known as patches and fixes, and are being blocked using claims of IP on parts which are otherwise protected by patent law.
How is the manufacturer of an engine control module or ABS brake chip harmed by the auto owner downloading or restoring the applicable recalls for that part?
If this layer of code is to be considered IP - then none of us can own anything digital - including cell phones, televisions, programmable coffee pots, or automobiles.
Our goal at the digital right to repair Coalition (new in January) is to correctly define the hardware-centric routines that serve only to make the equipment work from creative intellectual property, such as application software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OEM abuse of copyright concepts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been going on for years.
I have two Dodge trucks a 99 and a 02. I will not replace them until I absolutely must and I will not replace them with a Dodge.
Frankly, I think if I purchase a vehicle you should be REQUIRED to provide me reasonably priced access to any tools required to access all diagnostics and settings.
I will not be locked into a stealer... er um dealer for service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nor does she give a toss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know it has grown to fucking powerful and bloated and would rather see them out of business than force the corporations to compete fairly in the marketplace.
I think this is a wonderful thing, the copyright people keep pushing and pushing and eventually the pushback will sweep them right out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After DMCA it was simple to claim a digital lock was on the processor and there for illegal to break the lock to read them. So we are still a decade later in the same place we were prior to the DMCA coming into effect.
It's the older cars that don't have digital locks on the error codes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OBDC-II
Now what kind of nonsense is a law that now makes any data through the connector proprietary?
I have no problems making some of the information proprietary, but the common sort of info that tells you which sensor is bad, or which cylinder isn't firing properly should still be available via OBDC-II.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dealerships have been doing this for some time
I seem to recall a case where the tool had been trademarked (to prevent non-dealerships from obtaining the same tool). I've searched the web for this but can not seem to find the case.
Anyhow, a great way the auto makers are serving their customers (eh hem, I mean themselves).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]