That's only one part of the problem, though. While it's great that the Sixth Circuit smacked down Lexmark here, the ruling is specific to the way that particular Lexmark printer worked - the small program on the toner cartridges they used to make a DMCA claim did not actually have any DRM on it, and the copyrightability of the program itself was marginal at best.
If you built a printer where most, if not all of it's firmware existed on the ink or toner cartridges, then you could wield software copyright far more effectively here. You could have the printer wipe each cartridge when it's spent, so that it actually doesn't know how to print anything until you install a fresh cartridge. Copying the cartridge data would be copyright infringement, and resetting the chip would be a DMCA 1201 violation, because the print count is actually a licensing mechanism here.
One might argue that you could reimplement the printing firmware. However, this poses several practical problems:
- Reimplementing the firmware without infringing upon it requires detailed legal analysis and internal discipline regarding code copying. You don't strictly need to do clean-room, but most engineers have such a bad idea of how copyright works that it's probably advisable. Furthermore, you will almost certainly be sued for doing so and will need to explain yourself to a judge, which will cost millions and millions of dollars.
- Printers running reimplemented firmware may malfunction or break, which would void the warranty. (Granted, that probably doesn't mean much, but large business customers will care)
- The printer could be designed with secure boot features to refuse loading alternative firmware. While these may be circumventable, you're now distributing DMCA 1201 circumvention tools and will need to make some very legally specious arguments as to why you think it's OK to do so.
All of this costs lots of developer-hours in order to do and poses business risks. This also multiplies for each printer model - it's not like companies specifically design interchangeable ink cartridges and firmware, after all. Companies could specialize in this, of course, but one mistake will be fatal. In fact, even if we repealed DMCA 1201, many of these risks would remain.
While I admire the hacker ethic of breaking DRM, I don't think most businesses would actually go about doing so if such things were legalized. There's all sorts of ridiculously anti-consumer shit out there that companies haven't tried yet, and would be very expensive to break. What we need is a law that puts positive obligations on DRM vendors to provide unlock tools for lawful purposes, and court rulings that make misusing DRM to co-mingle copyright and non-copyright concerns (e.g. "you can't use our printer software without buying our ink") into a form of copyright abuse.
They do, but there are also RFID tags that contain a microcontroller that can power external components from RF power, so potentially you could embed up with one that has an external flash chip (probably wouldn't have enough power do do a write, but maybe could still read it)
You're able to reverse engineer and duplicate for form, fit, and function. If it has to do a certain thing to work in the thing you bought you're clear.
If you built a printer where most, if not all of it's firmware existed on the ink or toner cartridges, then you could wield software copyright far more effectively here. You could have the printer wipe each cartridge when it's spent, so that it actually doesn't know how to print anything until you install a fresh cartridge. Copying the cartridge data would be copyright infringement, and resetting the chip would be a DMCA 1201 violation, because the print count is actually a licensing mechanism here.
One might argue that you could reimplement the printing firmware. However, this poses several practical problems:
- Reimplementing the firmware without infringing upon it requires detailed legal analysis and internal discipline regarding code copying. You don't strictly need to do clean-room, but most engineers have such a bad idea of how copyright works that it's probably advisable. Furthermore, you will almost certainly be sued for doing so and will need to explain yourself to a judge, which will cost millions and millions of dollars.
- Printers running reimplemented firmware may malfunction or break, which would void the warranty. (Granted, that probably doesn't mean much, but large business customers will care)
- The printer could be designed with secure boot features to refuse loading alternative firmware. While these may be circumventable, you're now distributing DMCA 1201 circumvention tools and will need to make some very legally specious arguments as to why you think it's OK to do so.
All of this costs lots of developer-hours in order to do and poses business risks. This also multiplies for each printer model - it's not like companies specifically design interchangeable ink cartridges and firmware, after all. Companies could specialize in this, of course, but one mistake will be fatal. In fact, even if we repealed DMCA 1201, many of these risks would remain.
While I admire the hacker ethic of breaking DRM, I don't think most businesses would actually go about doing so if such things were legalized. There's all sorts of ridiculously anti-consumer shit out there that companies haven't tried yet, and would be very expensive to break. What we need is a law that puts positive obligations on DRM vendors to provide unlock tools for lawful purposes, and court rulings that make misusing DRM to co-mingle copyright and non-copyright concerns (e.g. "you can't use our printer software without buying our ink") into a form of copyright abuse.