Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

+ - What are the Consumers' Rights to Modify Files in Their Devices?

Submitted by michalk
michalk writes: I own a device that was manufactured in the post-DMCA period that uses a database. This database is available from only one company. I've looked at the files in the database card, of which there are two files: the actual database, and what I believe to be a signature. Changing one or the other causes the device to refuse to work.
I have come to the point where I want to make my own database, but there is no way to do this unless I know how to make the device accept the signature file.
What are the consumer rights in this circumstance? DMCA most likely prevents reverse engineering, but I don't want their database. I'm not interested in duplicating or reverse engineering the hardware, but that seems like the only way to get around their DRM to use my own data.
Searching Google, I get drowned in other irrelevant DRM arguments and am unable to find examples relevant to supplanting data provided by a company on my device.
Is this legal?

Comment: Re:Well duh (Score 4, Interesting) 208

by michalk (#41980485) Attached to: Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation
When this happened, I was mulling over my position on jury nullification, and came to the conclusion that it is an important tool as a limit on state power. However, in a civil case it gets a lot more difficult. We need a stable set of rules so we know where the boundaries are, otherwise we are no better than a third world country where graft is the norm. The problem is now that civil damages exceed what criminal damages can do to an individual, where do we draw the line? Do we say Jury nullification is okay to be used when excessive damages are awarded for file sharing? Okay, then why is that different than patent infringement? I like jury nullification. Unfortunately every time I've been in voir dire, and admitted to the ability to use it, I've been thrown out. For jury nullification to be a valid defense against the state (and corporation too?), it must be used properly. It doesn't feel to me like it was used properly in the Samsung/Apple case.

Comment: Tinfoil Hat (Score 1) 241

by michalk (#15410225) Attached to: Symantec AntiVirus Hole Found
Sometimes you have to wonder. If one reads enough of these vulnerabilities in Windows and antivirus and browser systems, one would get the idea that it's all quite convenient in some ways. I am not a conspiracy theorist ... well after this post I may be. My theory would be that a company could easily be approached by the government and paid to add back doors to their software. It's a lot safer than trying to get records from the phone companies and there's a lot more information to be had. If the company is large enough, it would never get noticed by regular programmers. All it would take is a compromized module, object, dll, whatever to make this happen. Even a compromized compiler would do it.

System going down at 1:45 this afternoon for disk crashing.