Grad Student sued by SunnComm Tech. Inc...any basis?

Great Debates
1

On Oct. 6th a Princeton Grad Student, Alex Halderman, posted a report on his website that explained how to disable the copywrite security on CDs using SunnComms software.

Mr. Hamilton didn’t crack any code, or explain how to crack any code. He merely pointed out that you can disable the drivers by holding down the shift key. (For windows machines - The software didn’t work for Mac or Linux)

SunnComm didn’t like that their software was so easy to bypass and all the money they’d invested was going down the drain.
Article

This may be more of a GQ, but I doubt the answer is cut and dry so I thought I’d put it here.

I couldn’t find anywhere in the DMCA (I admit to browsing quickly) where it would prohibit something like this. He didn’t publish the code, or crack it. Hell, he probably didn’t even need to look at it. Does SunnComm really have a case here? It seems to me they’re trying to find someone to blame for their lousy security program.

2

Looks like this will be a non-issue for this particular issue: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/10/10/news/8797.shtml

I like this part:

Heh.

3

Uh, non-issue for this particular guy. I’m an idiot.

4

Except, by the definition of “brain dead” when used to describe software, as in “too stupid to survive,” his “technology” IS brain dead. I see the mere one-third drop in their value as fortunate for them; pawning off something like that as copy protection that was “incredibly secure” shows them to be liars and sleaze merchants. They’re lucky to still be in business.

5

17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act):

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that –
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
© is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’t knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

I don’t think there’s any question of money making, so © is out. I’m not an expert on the DMCA and I know there are some exceptions that could apply, so maybe another attorney will chime in. He’s also got a pretty good chance at a free speech claim like the authors of DeCSS finally prevailed on in California. But he’s probably violated the DMCA as written.

Frankly, some of the government laws about this sort of thing lead to absurd results and there really ought to be more interest in examining them.

6

copyRIGHT!

7

Well, IANAL, but looking at the text that Mighty Maximino posted:

Halderman didn’t create any “technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof”. If anyone did, it’s Microsoft. Using the Shift key to bypass autoload is a basic Windows capability.

Also, given the trivial nature of the vulnerability, SunnComm can hardly claim that their software is a “a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title” (emphasis added).

I think the threat of a lawsuit was frivolous. Evidently some-one that actually knows something about the law gave CEO Peter Jacobs similar advice.

I also think that whatever contracts he had with the record labels are going to face some serious reconsideration. I don’t know what the contract terms state, but I presume he promised to deliver an effective copy-protection program. This is not merely a bug, but a design flaw the invalidates the whole scheme. He may find himself on the hook with his clients (BMG).