Clippy Army: Tell your representatives to fix 1201
We started FULU Foundation to fight back against the erosion of ownership rights over our digital devices and content. In this newsletter, we’ll be highlighting not only the corporate practices that infringe on your Right to Own your stuff, but also what you can do to push back.
This week, we’ve got an update on our bounties, the 101 on Section 1201, and a call to urge your members of Congress to support reform. Take action today.
Announcing winners of the Echelon, Futurehome bounties
Back in July, two stories of anti-ownership practices came across our desk, both in the form of what I like to call “reverse ransomware.”
Consumers bought a product that came with certain features. The manufacturer pushed a firmware update “breaking” the device, and owners were required to pay a subscriptions to fix it.
In the case of the Futurehome Smarthub, device owners lost the ability to set up home automations and control connected devices through the phone app unless they paid an $117 annual subscription. Echelon exercise bike owners completely lost the ability to use third-party apps to track their ride, or to see their progress while riding without an internet connection. The cost of entry to Echelon’s walled garden starts at $40 per month or $400 a year.
Louis announced bounties for firmware cracks to fix Futurehome and Echelon products of $5,000 and $20,000, respectively.
Our announcement of the Echelon bounty winner, Ricky Witherspoon, was picked up by 404 Media and Techspot. Louis talked to him about the problem and what inspired him to start making his app.
“I would probably feel very differently if I had purchased the bike and it already had this limitation on it, or that they advertised it up front, because I know what I’m getting into,” Ricky told Louis. “The fact that it didn’t, and then that they explicitly created this firmware update to stop people from having their own choice is really what bothered me and what set me off to go down this path.”
To me, what Ricky said gets right to the heart of our argument. When you purchase an exercise bike—or a phone, or a car, or a digital copy of a movie—you make an agreement between the buyer and the seller. Manufacturers and content producers have used the proliferation of software and rise of streaming as an invitation to adjust those agreements how they see fit, when they see fit, and force it upon us, the owners.
Apps such as Ricky’s should be a way for owners to reclaim a seat at the table and push back against these non-consensual agreements. But, because of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), even that path of recourse is not an option.
Sec. 1201 of the DMCA infringes on your ownership rights
The DMCA was passed in 1998 in response to the rise of the internet. In the 27 years since, it has been a hotbed of controversy, with debate rising about Sec. 230 and DMCA takedowns, to name a few.
When it comes to the erosion of ownership in the digital economy, Section 1201 of the DMCA reigns supreme. The law prevents, “circumvent[ion] of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” In plain english, that means that you can’t bypass a digital lock that stands between you and a copyrighted work, such as a movie, a song, or source code.
It doesn’t matter if you have no plans to illegally distribute the copyrighted work. Simply bypassing the digital lock—even to repair your device or restore lost functionality—is enough to trigger this law and potentially make you a copyright criminal.
That level of control also enables manufacturers to—you guessed it—use reverse ransomware to make you pay a subscription for something you already own.
Thanks to efforts of organizations including EFF, iFixit, and Public Knowledge, the Right to Repair movement has won exemptions to Sec. 1201 for repair of an increasing number of devices. Those exemptions, plus an exemption for the purpose of interoperability, protect efforts including Ricky’s to make repairs on his own device.
The issue with going beyond someone’s own device comes from part (b) of Sec. 1201. Known as anti-trafficking provision, it states that “No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.”
Our read of that language is that Ricky would be breaking the law by distributing his app, whether for free or for sale. And the latest exemptions recommendations from the Librarian of Congress states that it doesn’t have the authority to grant exemptions from the anti-trafficking provision
Adrian Jagielak, the winner of our Futurehome bounty, lives in Poland, so he doesn’t have to worry about Sec. 1201. His post explaining how he restored the ability to set home automations nearly frontpaged Reddit—with no fear of DMCA reprisal.
What we’re doing to reform Sec. 1201
There is no reason that repair should represent a copyright crime,just as there isno reason that holding a copyright should grant a manufacturer the authority to lock out independent repair.But the law as it currently stands is not only hamstringing Ricky—it’s preventing innovators from creating comprehensive repair tools for John Deere tractors, powered wheelchairs, even iPhones.
That needs to change. FULU is currently working with a House member to introduce legislation that would take us a step closer to that future. Tomorrow, I’m heading to D.C. to meet with staffers to find a Senator to carry a matching bill in the upper chamber.
I’m hoping that your voice can get there first.
We have preloaded language, but don’t hesitate to add a sentence or two on why repair matters to you.
Finally, keep your eyes out for more examples of reverse ransomware and other anti-ownership practices. When you find them, write an article on ConsumerRights.Wiki so that we have a record of it and we can spread the word to legislators and the public through Louis’ channel.
Onward,
Kevin O'Reilly
Executive Director, FULU Foundation
