EFF: TI calculator hackers didn't violate DMCA

The Electronic Frontier Foundation on Tuesday rebutted legal assertions by Texas Instruments that enthusiasts who figured how to install their own operating systems on TI calculators violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

In a letter sent to the processor and calculator maker, Jennifer Granick, civil-liberties director at the EFF, argued that TI calculator enthusiasts Brandon Wilson, Tom Cross, and Duncan Smith didn't deserve letters TI sent them August 27 demanding that they remove various online posts about installing alternative operating systems. The three had taken down the posts but plan to restore them October 26, unless TI supplies evidence of a violation, Granick said.

The TI-83 Plus calculator

(Credit: Texas Instruments)

In the posts, the three discussed use of reverse-engineered digital keys that made it simple to install alternative operating systems on the TI calculators. Wilson and Smith posted the actual keys that could be used to perform the installation.

But none of that violated the DMCA's anticircumvention provision, which states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" protected under the copyright act, Granick said.

For one thing, the calculators' operating systems already were available in unencrypted form on the calculator itself, easily retrieved by connecting it with a computer. For another, TI made the operating systems available for download on its Web site, she said.

"The key Texas Instruments is so concerned about doesn't have anything to do with protecting the operating systems in any way," Granick said.

In a statement, Cross added, "The DMCA should not be abused to censor online discussion by people who are behaving perfectly legally. It's legal to engage in reverse engineering, and its legal to talk about reverse engineering."

TI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

So was it a matter of modifying the copyrighted operating systems themselves?

Section 117 of the Copyright Act also "allows people to modify copies of software they own to make them work better with the devices they own," she added, but in any event, that's not what TI accused the three of doing in the first place, Granick said. There are several alternative operating systems available at TIcalc.org, a site that has been documenting TI calculator technology since 1996 and that helped publicize the operating-system digital signing key in July.

"With this achievement, any operating system can be cryptographically signed in a manner identical to that of the original TI-OS. Third-party operating systems can thus be loaded on any 83+ (TI-83 Plus) calculators without the use of any extra software," Michael Vincent, the site's news editor, said in announcing the keys in July. "Complete programming freedom has finally been achieved on the TI-83 Plus!"

The trio were not alone in receiving DMCA letters from TI. United TI also received one, and EFF said TI sent a "torrent" of them.

[WelshMullet]

One platform down, a lot more to go!
I wonder if you can do this on an Apple?
according to "Section 117 of the Copyright Act" mentioned above, could you "hack" any software to make it work better? legally?

[mustangj36]

The key word in that sentence of Section 117 is "own". Apple claims that buyers of Apple software don't own it, they merely lease it and they (Apple) retain full control of what you can or can't do with it. The same claim is made by most software makers. I don't happen to agree with that stance and I'm sure I am not alone. If we as buyers put down our cash for a product we should be able to do whatever we want with it.

[zyxxy]

Except that when you put down cash each month to rent a house from me, you are doing just that, renting. And I have limits to what you can do there. No construction. No painting. No creating holes in any surface without my prior approval. Basically, you are paying for the privilege (not 'Right') to live there. Same as when you lease a car, there are terms and limits. Not at all like the Mayor of NYC, who has no term limits, but I digress....

So when you buy an Apple computer, it comes with a lease to use the OS on that computer for the duration of time that you own that computer. Same with a PC and Windows. You are not buying the OS. You are buying that hardware. You can do whatever you want with the hardware.

[adam_m_frederick]

@mustangj36

So, when I tinker with my operating systems/programs at home, even though no one else recieves the modified work, and it works better for me, I am breaking the law?

Is the same thing true for the iPhone OS? Cause if so, i'm screwed. YIKES!

[Lerianis3]

With all due respect to mustang36 and zyxxy, those stipulations in those agreements have been looked upon by legal experts with the old 'half-closed' eye, including by judges, who have stated that if anyone ever challenged that you were just 'renting' the OS, they would rule that it applies the same as if you are buying a toaster, you are BUYING the thing in question, not renting it.

[Dalkorian]

Not necessarily trying to disagree here, just prodding for thought. If I were to own the OS I bought, I could do what I wanted with it, right? So I could buy winblows, create an ISO image of it, burn that onto blank DVD's and sell it, right? It's mine, after all ...

Software licenses have a purpose.

[Pete Bardo]

"allows people to modify copies of software they own to make them work better with the devices they own,"
Does that mean it's illegal to "hack" the software and end up making it worse?

[Renegade Knight]

Of course it does.

[Renegade Knight]

""The key Texas Instruments is so concerned about doesn't have anything to do with protecting the operating systems in any way," Granick said."

Exactly. It replaces the OS. This is akin to the RIAA being annoyed that you erase a movie from a DVD to put a home movie on it. TI should be thrilled. It would sell more calculators.

[paulreid99]

They make their money because people cannot replace the OS. They are the recommended calculator in tens of thousand of high schools and colleges for this very reason. Without this assurance (that a "memory clear" works properly instead of pretending), they will cease to be the recommended calculator in many of these schools.

Hackers buy very few calculators compared to HS/College Students...

[Lerianis3]

paulreid99, there are already ways to make calculators APPEAR to be 'memory-cleared' when they actually aren't, so your point is moot. The fact is that schools are going to have to go OPEN BOOK with tests, instead of insisting that kids remember numerous formulae and other things that only an autistic savant could remember from day to day.
Hell, even NASA PEOPLE who are using those formulae...... have them in easy reach in books and on computers near them. They do NOT have to remember these things, period and done with.

[Renegade Knight]

@paulreid99

It's a fair point that hackers buy few calculators. So TI Sells Everthing they would have sold (to those who don't replace the OS) + a few more to hackers.

It's still an uptick. They don't actually make any money because people can't replace the OS they make it because TI did a good job making a good calculator that did become a standard.

[terminalblue]

Why is DMCA abuse illegal? (i know it is, but there are no real penalties for it)

I am so tired of this, everyweek there is a new story about some company overstepping their bound to scare content providers (how about last weeks ralph lauren BS).

ANYONE that every thought the DMCA was a good idea needs to be dragged out on to the street and shown how it handicaps progress.

[mustangj36]

The RIAA and the MPAA thought DMCA was a great idea. In fact, they wrote the bill themselves, wrapped it in a wad of cash and gave it to their senators and congressmen to pass into law.

[Michichael]

@mustangj36

How dare you accuse your elected officials of accepting cash bri-.. er.. incentives! The bill was WRAPPED in cash, the cash wasn't PART of the bill. They just don't keep track of the "wrapping" that bills come in. Would you like to join them on a private jet trip to Paris now with a slice of $10,000 cake?

[phatose]

A good idea, poorly executed is not the same as a bad idea.

The underlying premise of the DMCA - that any economy that expects investment in digital content in the age of the internet had best provide legal means to ensure the creators can profit from their works - isn't a bad idea. Well, it's not if you want people to actually make content, anyway.


It's certainly an imperfect bill, by any measure. Unfortunately, neither side seems interested in actually achieving the goal of keeping content flowing, as they do in blatant economic self interest. Consumers and Producers alike, arguing ideology with the actual motive of making sure the other guy is the one fitting the bill.

[syberlink]

April 1, 1997 directv reached into my set top box, into the chip and turned off the programming I bought and paid for. Attorney's general from 31 states sued then stating Fraud in the complaint. Directv paid 11 million for having used there intellectual property rights to turn off the paid for programming. Under our constitution consumers have the right to protect and defend the property they purchase. Does usc 17 1201 really extend the right of the copyright holder to alter the embedded chip to steal? The answer is yes. In fact I was sued in 2003 because I bought an access card to stop this same theft. So 17 usc 1201 gives the right to the copyright holder to use there right to commit theft and fraud on the products we buy every day? It is discussed here :
http://theft-by-satellite-company.com/index.html