Say What? Has the Doctor gone mad? What could printer ink and music possibly have in common?
In this case, its not really about the ink... its about the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. The DMCA was originally intended to protect copyright holders from digital reproduction of their materials, and from techniques in hardware or software that would circumvent copyright protection. Remember that little trick mentioned in this article about how to override copy protected CDs with a felt tip pen? Well, according to the DMCA, you would be breaking the law, and could face imprisonment.
I bring up the Lexmark case just to show how invasive, and all encompassing the DMCA really is.
Judge Karl Forester of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued the pretrial injunction against Static Control Components, a small Sanford, N.C.-based company that sells printer parts and other business supplies.
The order prohibits the company from selling its Smartek chip. When installed in compatible Lexmark printers, the chips allow the printers to use cheaper recycled toner cartridges that would otherwise be rejected by the printer's sensors.
Lexmark filed the suit late last year, alleging the Smartek chip violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the dismantling of devices intended to protect intellectual property rights.
Printer makers have employed a variety of technological means in recent years to undercut the market for recycled toner and ink cartridges, which typically sell for much less than original items. Most printer makers sell their printers at or near cost, making their profit from sales of supplies.
So now you are legally bound to buy ink from one manufacturer, all thanks to the DMCA. The question that I have to ask is this: When the founders of the US Constitution wrote the original copyright act in 1791, the idea was that it would grant an author exclusive (monopoly) rights to his work for a set period of time. In return for granting this monopoly, the work would go to the public domain after a pre-determined period of time. If new works are being released in copy protected formats, and it is illegal to break the copy protection, what happens when the copyright expires? Since the body of work is locked up, it can never go to the public domain. Again, we are being cheated out of the bargain we entered into in good faith.
"Well, according to the DMCA, you would be breaking the law, and could face imprisonment."
Actually, no I wouldn't be, and no I wouldn't.
The DMCA doesn't apply to anyone living outside the United States.
My country, for one, doesn't believe in draconian anti-fair use laws. ;p~
Yes, that's true... but since the US is the entertainment capital of the world, what happens here affects the whole world, at least to some extent. My point is just that this is bad legislation. Its far too one sided against the public, and the long term affects I think will harm the entertainment industry and cheat the public out of their musical heritage.
