Firmware Facts 101

[loupgarou]

iirc, the power of software licenses comes from contract law and copyright law.

it is because computer systems are required to duplicate the software (eg; adobe) on the harddisk in order to be operated.

this duplication (because it is verbatim) is technically illegal except where the copyright holder (adobe) waives it rights to prosecute you for copyright infringement when you agree to its software license.

reverse engineering is allowable by copyright fair use laws except where modified by the DMCA - but that's also on flux
--
the subject of shrinkwrap licensing/EULA.

legal contracts can only be enforced by legal adults. (ie: my dog agreeing to the software license by clicking the enter key is NOT legal, nor a kid under 18.)

there's also a lot of stuff about the unilateral nature of shrink wrap licensing.. I think this is applicable to companies that change the nature of their original EULA license via mandatory software upgrades etc .

there's also some issue with regards to the way licensing is enforced. (ie: you shouldn't be made to agree to a contract after you have paid your money.).

---

with regards to the firmware

when buying the original camera, did you agree to any license at all?

doubt it.

 

[pbleic]

In the Sega case, the reverse engineering was done for the purpose of learning a password that needed to be incorporated in a cartridge. The code wasn't reused. This doesn't apply.

In the BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES case, the shrinkwrap license was ruled to not override allowed reverse engineering from the Copyright Act.

None of this is relevant. Wasia didn't "reverse engineer" the code - he took it lock, stock, and barrel and slightly modified it, then redistributed it. It is a DIRECT violation of the Canon copyright. The shrinkwrap license is irrelevant here. He is redistributing the works of others.

The Atari/Nintendo case isn't relevant either - in fact it supports the illegality of the hack:

Atari is free to develop a lockout program for its own video game machines. Nintendo cannot copyright that idea. By contrast, Atari is not free to appropriate Nintendo's specific technique for 'locking' its own game console. ...The court rejected Atari's argument that "intermediate copying" was justified as long as the copier's final program was not substantially similar to the copied program."

Shrinkwrap licenses are irrelevant here - wholesale copying of a work is expressly forbidden by copyright law, whether mentioned in a license or not.
--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[Bryan Biggers]

Finally, someone gets this situation right. The software license is meaningless as are all the arguements about it.

The current situation IS a violation of copyright law simply because they are distributing the Canon firmware with modifications. It is like if someone copied a book, changed a few lines, then made it available for download on the internet. The firmware is a copyrighted work; you simply CAN'T distribute it even in modified form. In fact, you can't distribute it even it it wasn't modified!

It does not matter that Canon makes this avaliable for free on their site, that is their choice, the work is STILL COPYRIGHTED.

It is the DISTRIBUTION of this copyrighted work that is the problem, not the fact that they are changing it.

A solution to this problem would be to distribute a "mod" file which would be perfectly legal. You would download the unmodified firmware from Canon, which is perfectly legal if they choose to make their work available that way. Then you would apply the mod or difference file to patch the firmware, then install it on your camera. You can modify a copyrighted work for your own use all you want, but you cannot then distribute it. Using the book analogy, you could underline in your copy of a book, or write your own facinating comments or chapters in it, or tear out some pages, or draw pictures of dogs in it, but you can't then (legally) make copies of that and (legally) distribute the modified book. You can't even make copies and distribute the UNMODIFIED book. That would be a clear violation of copyright law, period.

I suggest that the creators of this modified firmware start using a mod file as soon as possible to avoid further trouble; it would be easy to do.

Bryan

In the Sega case, the reverse engineering was done for the purpose
of learning a password that needed to be incorporated in a
cartridge. The code wasn't reused. This doesn't apply.

In the BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES case, the shrinkwrap
license was ruled to not override allowed reverse engineering from
the Copyright Act.

None of this is relevant. Wasia didn't "reverse engineer" the code

• he took it lock, stock, and barrel and slightly modified it, then

redistributed it. It is a DIRECT violation of the Canon copyright.
The shrinkwrap license is irrelevant here. He is redistributing
the works of others.

The Atari/Nintendo case isn't relevant either - in fact it supports
the illegality of the hack:

Atari is free to develop a lockout program for its own video game
machines. Nintendo cannot copyright that idea. By contrast, Atari
is not free to appropriate Nintendo's specific technique for
'locking' its own game console. ...The court rejected Atari's
argument that "intermediate copying" was justified as long as the
copier's final program was not substantially similar to the copied
program."

Shrinkwrap licenses are irrelevant here - wholesale copying of a
work is expressly forbidden by copyright law, whether mentioned in
a license or not.
--
Paul

 

[Troy114670]

The issue here is that by hacking a DBS smart-card you are
accessing copy-right content without authorization. Here in Canada,
for example, this is restricted by the Radio Communications act.
The issue is not modifiying the software--per se--but accessing
material without authorization (ie. HBO).

The issue is both. Tons of people are paying hefty fines for simply owning the hardware/software used to manipulate DBS Smartcards. People who write software do care about the modification of their code, just like people who take pictures care about the modification of their images.

 

[mrkryz]

Again so basically over 50+ threads the group has acknowledged what I said over a week ago ....

on reverse engineering:
use findlaw and search on:
Sega Enterprises LTD v. Accolade, Inc.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108v2&exact=1

on shrink wrap licenses.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-lofgren-bill/view

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2225

--

Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

 

[Troy114670]

We all know its not legal. Now you can argue whether that should be the case, if laws about licensing/rights management should be changed, but for now, it is NOT legal.

I've said it before but I am still amazed at how some photographers want to interpret rights management differently when it benefits them. Human selfishness is an amazing thing. It is not enough to illegal obtain the firmware, but now you want to convince yourself and everyone else that you're well within your rights. Use your modified firmware, but stop trying to justify it to the rest of the world.

 

[pbleic]

on reverse engineering:
use findlaw and search on:
Sega Enterprises LTD v. Accolade, Inc.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108v2&exact=1

on shrink wrap licenses.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-lofgren-bill/view

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2225

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[pbleic]

Next time you post a picture, I took the picture and edited it a tad and then posted it as mine.

Of course not. I would be violating your copyright, just as much as Wasia is violating their copyright.

What if someone else took that picture and published it, with my permission? Even though they didn't take it from you, they would be liable for violating your rights.

on reverse engineering:
use findlaw and search on:
Sega Enterprises LTD v. Accolade, Inc.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108v2&exact=1

on shrink wrap licenses.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-lofgren-bill/view

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2225

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------

Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004 All rights reserved.

 

[mrkryz]

Read my ORIGINAL post ....

I said installing it is NOT illegal. Wasia distributing it may in fact be however FIRST look into international copyright laws as they apply to the Russian Federation. Please READ my post before you spout off at the mouth regarding what is is is not legal....

BTW:

"4. SOFTWARE AND DATA BASES: Software and databases are protected by the Federal Law on Software and Databases of September 23, 1992. According to the law, software (computer programs) and databases are protected as objects of copyright (like books, films and obther objects). No registration by the author is necessary to obtain the software rights, but registration is possible if the author desires this. Exclusive rights to the software belong to the author; no one can sell or offer to sell it, or reproduce it for industrial use. The procedure for databases is the same; there is no "sui generis" protection of databases in Russia. Databases are protected by copyright laws, just as literature is so protected."

NOTE: "Exclusive rights to the software belong to the author; no one can sell or offer to sell it, or reproduce it for INDUSTRIAL USE".

And that is from the Trade Representation Department of the Russian Federation.

We all know its not legal. Now you can argue whether that should
be the case, if laws about licensing/rights management should be
changed, but for now, it is NOT legal.

I've said it before but I am still amazed at how some photographers
want to interpret rights management differently when it benefits
them. Human selfishness is an amazing thing. It is not enough to
illegal obtain the firmware, but now you want to convince yourself
and everyone else that you're well within your rights. Use your
modified firmware, but stop trying to justify it to the rest of the
world.

--

Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

 

[loupgarou]

well, the way i see it, if the end result is the same for this case (ie; distributing mod file as opposed to a full firmware), what's the diff? you still get a upgraded camera.

seems more like semantics.

until canon actually does something, there's no point harping over it over and over again

 

[PaulyOly]

I cut the frame in several places, replaced the springs with air springs, moved the shocks by rewelding mounts. Cut out the front wheel wells so it could roll this low. Everyone told me this would void my warranty, but Ford fixed my AC when it went out just the same. They even played with the air suspension. You should see what i did to the inside. All this i did myself, so i say hack it up, cut it up and shut it up!

So a little software hack is childs play to me.

--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

 

[Jay]

All this i did myself, so i say hack it
up, cut it up and shut it up!

I agree 100%. While the 300D has software components, they are used as a means to control hardware. The 300D is sold primarily as a HARDWARE product. If this ever went to court I think it would boil down to intended use. A year or so ago it was very common for PDA owners to send in their PDA's to 3d parties to have mods done just like you did to your truck. Really the only difference here is that rather than sending it in, you are simply using the internet to facilitate the modification of an existing hardware product. I really think software licenses in their current incarnation (at least in the U.S.) fly in the face of tradition when it comes to innovation. Back shed tinkerers have been doing this exact type of thing for a couple hundred years with already patented products. Software licenses are written for the protection of intellectual property and are based on the laws used to protect books & music. When you purchase a camera, I think the courts would agree that most consumers believe they are purchasing a hardware product not intellectual property.

 

[Jay]

....it's not the same as purchasing a PC. In that case you are purchasing hardware to facilitate the use of software, not the other way around. And in either case their is nothing stopping you from modding the hardware(warranty arguments aside)

All this i did myself, so i say hack it
up, cut it up and shut it up!

I agree 100%. While the 300D has software components, they are
used as a means to control hardware. The 300D is sold primarily as
a HARDWARE product. If this ever went to court I think it would
boil down to intended use. A year or so ago it was very common for
PDA owners to send in their PDA's to 3d parties to have mods done
just like you did to your truck. Really the only difference here
is that rather than sending it in, you are simply using the
internet to facilitate the modification of an existing hardware
product. I really think software licenses in their current
incarnation (at least in the U.S.) fly in the face of tradition
when it comes to innovation. Back shed tinkerers have been doing
this exact type of thing for a couple hundred years with already
patented products. Software licenses are written for the
protection of intellectual property and are based on the laws used
to protect books & music. When you purchase a camera, I think the
courts would agree that most consumers believe they are purchasing
a hardware product not intellectual property.

 

[Bryan Biggers]

well, the way i see it, if the end result is the same for this case
(ie; distributing mod file as opposed to a full firmware), what's
the diff? you still get a upgraded camera.

The difference is, in the first case you are distributing Canon's copyrighted intellectual property (along with your modifications). In the US at least, that is a clear copyright violation, open and shut case. In the second case (mod file), you aren't and consumers are allowed to make whatever modifications to their owned copies of the firmware that they like. You can argue all you want about the picky stuff about software licenses, etc. etc, but the copyright violation is clear cut. The "hack" should be distributed as a mod file for that reason. This issue has already been dealt with with numerous of other systems and devices, and the legal way to do it is that you make a copy of your own ROM and modify it yourself.

seems more like semantics.

until canon actually does something, there's no point harping over
it over and over again

My opinion is that Canon WILL do something, even though they may not really care, and may even secretly approve knowing as we do that the modified firmware sells their cameras. The reason is that they will be forced to defend their copyright so that it does not set a precedent against a hypothetical future more serious case. Previously they could claim that they were not aware of the problem, however people have actually been calling Canon up to ask/tell them about the mod firmware, and then posting on these boards. Their lawyers will force them to respond simply to demonstrate that they at least tried to defend their copyright. That's lawyers for you.

Bryan

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

..........You've both cleared up most of my questions regarding whether the wasia hack is for me. I don't really have any practical need for it anyway at this time. Maybe I'll change my mind someday when I've gone beyond the types of pics that I'm taking at this time. By then, maybe I'll be ready for an upgrade to the 10D mkII. For my peace of mind, it would be better to know that I've paid Canon for providing me with what I want from them, just my opinion.

...........My only remaining question in regard to this hack is whether Canon is legally obligated to service/repair a Rebel that has it. I'm not neccessarily asking about the warranty because that will have expired in nine months anyway. I know that some posts have indicated that they are legally obligated to accept any Canon camera that comes through the door but I'm not convinced. If they returned it to me without fixing it for a failed shutter or for a failure to turn on (what happened to my Toshiba PDR-M25) in a year or two because they simply don't want to work on it because of the hacked firmware, what recourse would I have then?

Tim Rogers

http://www.pbase.com/tim_in_ny/300d_pics

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

simpletons can go pound sand

Gee, aren't you a congenial fellow

................This kind of abusive name calling has gotten others banned from posting at dpreview.

Tim Rogers

http://www.pbase.com/tim_in_ny/300d_pics

 

[Mark Marshall]

On behalf of Canon? Please tell me that the tone I detect is more irritation with (apparent) misinformation than indignation at what Wasia did. ~ m²

Of course not. I would be violating your copyright, just as much
as Wasia is violating their copyright.

What if someone else took that picture and published it, with my
permission? Even though they didn't take it from you, they would be
liable for violating your rights.

on reverse engineering:
use findlaw and search on:
Sega Enterprises LTD v. Accolade, Inc.
Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/fed/case/011108v2&exact=1

on shrink wrap licenses.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-releases/press-release-lofgren-bill/view

http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2225

--
Complete media development ranging from web presence to digital and
traditional photography. See http://cjkcybermedia.com and
http://gallery.cjkcybermedia.com

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic
--------------------------------------------------
Unless specified otherwise, all images are Copyright 2003, 2004
All rights reserved.

--
I'm sorry, we were unable to fix your headshot...
http://rhodeymark.instantlogic.com/PhotoGallery.ilx

 

[Bryan Biggers]

...........My only remaining question in regard to this hack is
whether Canon is legally obligated to service/repair a Rebel that
has it. I'm not neccessarily asking about the warranty because that
will have expired in nine months anyway. I know that some posts
have indicated that they are legally obligated to accept any Canon
camera that comes through the door but I'm not convinced. If they
returned it to me without fixing it for a failed shutter or for a
failure to turn on (what happened to my Toshiba PDR-M25) in a year
or two because they simply don't want to work on it because of the
hacked firmware, what recourse would I have then?

Under the intent of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the US, yes they would still have to provide warranty service. In real life I suppose that they could find some technicality to give you a hard time and you would have to sue them. It seems to me that it certainly would not be in Canon's best interest to alienate their customers, but companies have done dumber things. It remains to be seen what will happen.

Bryan

 

[hm]

A lot of folks on here suffer from:

A tendency towards ad hominem attacks.

Why cant ppl just enjoy their cameras and shut up already?

Good idea. Let's start with you and your legal opinions. In what state are you licensed to practice law again?
-harry

 

[roger55]

Canon is not a "software" company. They make their money on hardware that happens to make use of firmware.

Just like a car company is not a "software" company. People have been modifying car's computer firmware for years to get increased performance and I've never heard of any lawsuits by car companies with that.

I'm not saying either is "legal" by the book, but Canon will never try to stop anyone thru lawsuits. Warning customers that using the hacked firmware voids their warranty is as far as they will go.

If they don't want it to happen again, they will just make sure they don't set themselves up for it again. They are probably more embarrassed at the situation versus angry. It will be interesting to see if they turn on any of the features with future official firmware updates.

Btw, I have an IRIVER mp3 player that I really like. And IRIVER keeps releasing new firmware versions for it that give me the same features of the newer models. Maybe they don't want someone to get the incentive to hack their firmware?

well, the way i see it, if the end result is the same for this case
(ie; distributing mod file as opposed to a full firmware), what's
the diff? you still get a upgraded camera.

The difference is, in the first case you are distributing Canon's
copyrighted intellectual property (along with your modifications).
In the US at least, that is a clear copyright violation, open and
shut case. In the second case (mod file), you aren't and consumers
are allowed to make whatever modifications to their owned copies of
the firmware that they like. You can argue all you want about the
picky stuff about software licenses, etc. etc, but the copyright
violation is clear cut. The "hack" should be distributed as a mod
file for that reason. This issue has already been dealt with with
numerous of other systems and devices, and the legal way to do it
is that you make a copy of your own ROM and modify it yourself.

seems more like semantics.

until canon actually does something, there's no point harping over
it over and over again

My opinion is that Canon WILL do something, even though they may
not really care, and may even secretly approve knowing as we do
that the modified firmware sells their cameras. The reason is that
they will be forced to defend their copyright so that it does not
set a precedent against a hypothetical future more serious case.
Previously they could claim that they were not aware of the
problem, however people have actually been calling Canon up to
ask/tell them about the mod firmware, and then posting on these
boards. Their lawyers will force them to respond simply to
demonstrate that they at least tried to defend their copyright.
That's lawyers for you.

Bryan