Coupons.com Drops DMCA Case Against Guy Who Told People To Delete Files On Their Hard Drive

from the legal-issues-left-unsettled dept

We've been covering the DMCA lawsuit filed by Coupons.com against a guy, John Stottlemire, who figured out that if you delete a few files on your hard drive you could make extra copies of the coupon. Coupons.com tried to greatly stretch the DMCA to claim that this was circumventing copy protection -- but simply telling people to delete files on a hard drive hardly seems to be an circumvention tool. Plus, there were some legal issues over whether or not what Coupons.com was doing was really "copy protection." In many cases, Coupons.com's arguments seemed to contradict itself, though Stottlemire (who defended himself) was quick to point that out to the court.

It looks like Coupons.com recognized that this lawsuit was going to end badly, and has now agreed to dismiss the case. This is a big win for Stottlemire, though it's unfortunate that there was no legal ruling on this attempt to stretch the meaning of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. It will, undoubtedly, come up again in the future in other lawsuits.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Adds HDCP To New Laptops; Piracy Continues, Legit Users Get Annoyed

from the yes,-again dept

It appears that Apple has begun using HDCP copy protection technology on some content it sells through the iTunes Music Store, and implementing it in its latest laptops. HDCP "protects" content as it travels across different types of connections, and is generally implemented in such a way that an HDCP-compliant source won't play content on a non-HDCP compliant connected display. So HDCP-ified content can't be played on a number of older displays, or ones that don't use one of the compatible types of connections.

You know how this thing goes down: movie studios insist on some new magic method to protect their content from piracy, it gets implemented, does nothing to stop piracy (sometimes even helps pirates), and ends up getting in the way for legitimate customers. In this instance, a guy who'd bought a movie from iTunes tried to play it over a projector connected to his Mac via a VGA connection; instead of being able to enjoy the content he'd legitimately purchased in a reasonable way, he was greeted with an error message. So here's a customer who legitimately purchased some content, and is being stopped from enjoying it in a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and legal way. Once again, it's puzzling to see content and technology companies implement these roadblocks to frustrate their paying customers. What's the incentive for this guy to pay to download a movie, rather than download a pirated version that he can watch on his projector? Apparently, it bears repeating for content and device companies: you don't stop piracy by annoying your paying customers.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Who Can You Sue When It's Your Own Copy Protection That Hurt Your Reputation?

from the sue-everyone! dept

Video game maker Ubisoft has a rather long history of employing crappy DRM (and then even using someone else's code to crack their DRM when it caused problems for legitimate customers). However, this latest story involving a Ubisoft copy protection scheme may be the most bizarre. Chris Gruel writes in to let us know that Ubisoft is suing the CD duplicator firm it used to produce the video game Assassin's Creed, claiming that employees from that firm were responsible for the game leaking to the internet. It appears they have pretty good evidence that this did, in fact, happen (the leak was traced to an IP address controlled by an employee of the firm, and a copy of the game was found at that employee's home). So you can understand why they'd be upset about that (though, they had to realize that it would be pirated eventually).

However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.

It makes you shake your head in wonder.

If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

To Make Its Case, Coupons.com Says It Blocks Users When It Doesn't

from the let's-get-this-straight dept

We recently noted the somewhat mixed ruling in the Coupons.com lawsuit over whether or not it's a DMCA violation to merely tell people to delete some files from their hard drive. The ruling noted that Coupons.com was trying to make a rather questionable argument. It's a bit technical, and it required multiple readings to really understand what's going on here, but effectively, Coupons.com is trying to invoke the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause to punish a programmer who figured out how to get around the limits enforced by Coupons.com's software, which lets users use a coupon a limited number of times. The real issue in this case is whether the software is about preventing uses or copies. If it's uses, then it's not covered by the DMCA. If it's copies, then it is. The court noted that it certainly seems like the software is focused on uses rather than copies, as there's no actual part of the software that blocks you from accessing the coupons as much as you want. It just blocks you from using them.

The programmer, John Stottlemire, who is being sued in this case, writes in to let us know that Coupons.com has just described its system in a misleading way in order to convince the court that its software really is copy protection rather than use protection, claiming: "The features block an individual computer's access to a particular coupon offer altogether if that computer does not have the proper registry keys in place." In other words, there is copy protection that blocks access if the registry keys are missing.

That claim may sound a lot like copy protection, but that's not actually how their system works. Coupons.com doesn't block access to its coupons based on a registry key -- because if you don't have a registry key, Coupons.com simply issues you new one. And that's not how copy protection usually works; that's how usage protection works. If the system worked the way it was described to the court, then first-time users, who would not have the proper registry keys, should not be able to use Coupons.com because they would be blocked from accessing coupons. But Coupons.com doesn't do that to new users -- all users without registry keys are simply given new keys (and not blocked whatsoever).

Basically, Coupons.com appears to be pretending that its software doesn't work without a certain registry key in order to convince the judge that its software actually qualifies under the DMCA as copy protection. But, if it were copy protection, then Stottlemire's programs (or written instructions) for how to defeat the software by deleting the registry key wouldn't work. All Stottlemire's method of "circumvention" would do is trigger the copy protection to deny access. So, either Coupons.com is lying to the judge, or Stottlemire's program and instructions couldn't have done what they claim it did (in which case he wouldn't have broken the law). So... basically, it sounds like Coupons.com is either lying or they have no case. And, if they're lying, they don't have much of a case either.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Digital Watermarks Are Not The Answer

from the the-next-rabbit-hole dept

It was quite predictable that as the recording industry finally realized that DRM was a bad idea that it would move on to digital watermarking. The idea sounds appealing. It doesn't have the feature that people hate about DRM: preventing you from doing what you want with the music you've purchased -- but it does have a number of other downsides. First, it tends to degrade the quality of the audio. Second, it's often relatively easy to remove the watermark, making it effectively useless. Third, if watermarks are used to link a specific file to a specific user (which the industry insists it isn't doing... yet), it suddenly becomes a huge liability just to have those music files. Imagine if you lose your iPod full of watermarked tracks, and all of those tracks find their way onto file sharing sites? Even more importantly, the whole concept of watermarking is counterproductive to what music files should be about. If the industry were smart and understood the basic economics of what was happening, they'd want people to be sharing music. They should want people to be their biggest (free!) promoters of music. They should want people to be spreading the music of their musicians as a way to get the word out. The whole concept of watermarking goes against that very idea. It's more backwards thinking from an industry that is more focused on protecting an old way of doing business, rather than recognizing the opportunities of a new way of doing business.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Basing Your Business Model On Copy Protection Perhaps Not Such A Good Idea

from the making-things-worse-for-consumers-isn't-a-recommended-strategy dept

I have to admit that I never understood the purpose behind Snocap, Shawn Fanning's "second act" after Napster. The idea was that it would help artists sell music... by wrapping it up in DRM. As we pointed out when it launched, any business model based on DRM is doomed from the start. So, just as many bands start rushing to free their music from shackles, it should come as no surprise that Snocap is laying off 60% of its workforce and trying to sell itself. It may find someone out there willing to buy the company, but it's a sucker's bet. The very core of the company's business model is based on limiting what customers can do -- just as bands are figuring out how to provide more value to customers by not limiting them.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..