Hacker News Reader

Comment by shirtless_coder | Hacker News Reader

1-2 months tops before someone breaks their security.

well, that risk is exactly why they're testing the idea out in low-end markets first - so the people who would break the security for this probably don't even care for this laptop anyways.

You don't have to scratch your own itch. An entrepreneurial hacker could start selling "$50 value" unlocks for, say, $25.

Last time I checked, that would constitute illegal circumvention under the DMCA.

Yeah, don't try this in the USA. Fortunately it's just software, so you can sell it from anywhere as long as the USA doesn't block your advertising or payment processing.

Did you actually check at all?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...

Doesn't look to me like it covers CPU features.

They'd probably argue you're circumventing the copyright protections on the portion of the chip you didn't pay to access, just as circumventing DRM for pre-installed DLC for a game would be a DMCA violation. Anybody's guess what the courts would say about that, that is to say, I'm not saying I agree with this argument, just that I think it would be good enough to get someone selling $25 unlocks into court with a decent chance of serious losses.

Yup - which is why the unlock will just end up floating around out there for free, and the concept will just fall by the wayside as not market-worthy. Everyone and their dog will buy cheap chips and crank up the volume.

Since when do you make a copy of those parts of the chip to use them?

Copyright is about the right to restrict copying - the clue is in the name. The software case is fundamentally different, because your computer must make a (temporary) copy of the software in order to use it.

You don't make a copy, you have a copy. The DMCA applies to such works as well, at least as far as the law is concerned. This is part of why the DMCA is so offensive, the "anticircumvention" clause grotesquely expanded copyright law well beyond the act of mere copying. The act of circumvention becomes illegal, regardless of whether it even involves you "making a copy" in the eyes of the law. The act of playing a DVD on Linux by hacking past the encryption is illegal, even though that is not usually considered "making a copy" in the eyes of the law. (That's also something that has been fought over but I'm not convinced has been settled.)

The DMCA bans circumventing effective technological measures intended to prevent copying. The technological measure you'd be circumventing here is one intended to prevent you from using a feature of the hardware, not prevent you from copying a copyrighted work. The DMCA does not appear to apply.

(On the other hand, if they designed it such that you needed to upload a piece of (copyrighted) microcode to the CPU on each boot, then that could well bring it within the remit of copyright law. In that case, if you wanted to produce a third-party version, you'd have to write your own "clean room" version of the necessary microcode, which seems like a pretty high hurdle).

Did you actually look at the document I linked to? It explicitly listes the kind of works the DMCA applies to. And none of the things listed says "CPU features" or anything that could be interpreted to mean that by any stretch of imagination.

Oh, but it can. Imagination can stretch pretty damn far. All I'm saying is that I can "stretch" far enough to get you into court without getting your case thrown out immediately, and that's enough to chill anybody considering trying this gambit.

Last time I checked, Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to prevent third-parties from selling toner cartridges that work with Lexmark printers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Contr...

Lexmark lost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com