Legal to hack oscilloscope?

[mikeselectricstuff]

Did you agree to any sort of license when you bought it ? if not, there is no contract or licence that you can be bound to.
AIUI DMCA refers specifically to defeating copy protection, which doesn't apply here, and it is also questionable whether it could apply to a device like a scope which is not primarily a computer system.

TL;DR Hack away - nobody is going to come after you.

[Zero999]

C'mon guys & gals ... the OP is just asking a simple question and expecting answer either YES or NO.

Reason is quite obvious, he/she is in the middle hesitation and unclear what to decide.


To OP .. here my answer ...

Is it legal to hack an oscilloscope's bandwidth? If it's a federal/criminal offense I won't do it.

YES !

Are you a lawyer?

Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?

I'm not a lawyer. I'm pretty sure that unlocking an oscilloscope for private, non-commercial, use will not get you in trouble because of the practicalities of the manufacture finding out and pursuing you.

Morally speaking, I have no problem with unlocking an oscilloscope, whether it be for private, commercial use, or to resell. I think the manufacturer is immoral, if they actively cripple their product. Of course, this is totally different to what the law might permit: for example, if you do it on a large scale, it's quite likely the manufacturer will pursue you.

Note that I can't speak for others, as far as the moral argument is concerned. There are those with the total opposite view, who see hacking an oscilloscope to access features one hasn't paid for, as immoral. Then there are those who think hacking is fine for non-commercial purposes. Not to mention many other various viewpoints intbetween There's no point in discussing whether hacking an oscilloscope is moral or not. It's like arguing about religion. Again I refer to the flame thread:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/

[paulca]

Interesting read:
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-598-3565?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

Note the section on "Circumventing effective technological measures" is widely open to interpretation.

Again though I don't expect anything would come to an end user for hacking his or her scope/game system.  They will however seek people who are hacking them and then selling them, or selling hacking kits.

Ridol ARE losing out.  Assuming they sell the higher spec scope for a higher price, then by buying the lower spec'ed model and hacking it they lose out on revenue that you would have spent on the higher model.

There was a classic case of this a few decades back when Windows NT came out.  It came in two editions.  NT Server and NT Workstation.  When someone discovered that the software was identical but the price vastly different and there was a single bit flag which switched the server edition into being a workstation they tried to complain.  I can't remember if they actually took Microsoft to court, but it was put to bed anyway with Microsoft rightly claiming they can sell you partly disabled software for cheaper price if they wish.  This is a very common practice today.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?

Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?

There is probably a distinction to be made in some cases between enabling software functionality (decodes etc.) and removing hardware crippling (bandwidth, memory)

In the case of equipment you own which has been hacked - even if it was illegal how can anyone prove who did it?
I doubt anyone could find a situation where ownership of a hacked scope is illegal.
There maight be other classes of equipment where this could be the case in some countries ( RF sources, eavesdropping receivers, jammers etc.).

[firewalker]

When you buy a product you own it. You can do whatever you want. If you can find a way to make it work better, good for you.You can even make this knowledge public (at least in EU). You can even make money from the ?quired knowledge by making other peoples product work better.

I think the American automotive industry are pushing for legislation that the end user will own a car except from the firmware.

Alexander.

[paulca]

Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?

Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?

See my post regards UK EU.  The test case related to hacking a game system to play other regions games normally administratively disabled.

This used to be common on DVD players too at first.  Initially DVD players were single region, so if you had a UK DVD and inserted a US disc, it would not play it.  To make them easier to ship internationally they inserted a fuse switch allowing retailers to configure them.  They they allowed multiple changes, so you could switch to US if you moved there, you could switch back to UK if you returned, but you only have 3-5 goes and then it locked.

Today you can legally buy "regionless" or "multi-region" DVD players.  Usually for PC drives.  I think actual BlueRay and DVD still use region fuses.

I'm not sure if there are test cases for this instance, but I expect that selling region hacked Blueray players would get you attention of the law.

[paulca]

You can even make money from the ?quired knowledge by making other peoples product work better.

No, this is were you will get the attention of the law.  Certainly a civil case from the manufacturer.  As in the linked Nintendo case.  Technically though they were selling the mod chip.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Are you certain that hacking test equipment to unlock features, is legal worldwide?

Can anyone point to some specific legislation that would make it illegal ?

See my post regards UK EU.  The test case related to hacking a game system to play other regions games normally administratively disabled.

That was about selling circumvention devices, not using them

[FlyingHacker]

It is very likely illegal in the US, as the access code you enter to unlock the extra features is a protection measure, protecting the copyrighted code.

When you circumvent this you are likely violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act signed by Bill Clinton.

Now, I sincerely doubt anyone will do anything about it, but I bet it is illegal in the US.

I am not a lawyer....

[firewalker]

You can even make money from the ?quired knowledge by making other peoples product work better.

No, this is were you will get the attention of the law.  Certainly a civil case from the manufacturer.  As in the linked Nintendo case.  Technically though they were selling the mod chip.

They where selling something that bypassed a security feature?

I think that if you could send them the hole unit and take it but they would be fine.

There was a car tunning company in Greece that had reverse engineered the ECU of a specific brand of cars and was selling remapping services. The company tried to stop them but they could not. According to the law they had not violated anything.

Alexander.

[firewalker]

Entering a code from a keygen is not hacking. Although someone can claim that he hack the way on his own.

Alexander.

[firewalker]

A company was selling power supplies for HAM users. 12 volts @ 5 amps and 12 volts @ 10 amps. If there was an ovecurrent situation the psu would shutdown. I noticed that both psu were identical except the 5 Amp version was one output power transistor short.

So, I added a power transistor, changed the output fuse to 15 amps and set a trimmer of the opamp for the over current protection.

The 10 amps version was 50% more expensive. Was my doing illegal?

Alexander.

[rstofer]

Ridol ARE losing out.  Assuming they sell the higher spec scope for a higher price, then by buying the lower spec'ed model and hacking it they lose out on revenue that you would have spent on the higher model.

Maybe not...  Who would have bought the higher model?  In what volume?  As it is, Rigol OWNS the entry level scope business.  If they didn't have the expanded features at the existing price point, they would be just another manufacturer among the herd.  Why is the DS1054Z the most recommended entry level scope on this forum?  Price and features.  A good balance after the scope is unlocked.  The scope is nearly useless without unlocking.  The 50 MHz bandwidth is too limiting and without decoding, it's just another bottom end scope.  No reason to buy the Rigol version.

In my view, Siglent had the opportunity to take over the entry level segment with the SDS1204X-E - essentially nothing more than a Rigol DS1054Z with 200 MHz bandwidth.  But, no, they priced the scope at near $760 and that will be limiting how many units they sell.  There are a lot of 'gee whiz' differences between the two scopes but the only significant improvement is bandwidth.  So, they make a 100 MHz and 200 MHz version and price them wildly different.  The 100 MHz version is just another 'me too' priced $100+ more than the DS1054Z and the 200 MHz version is just too expensive.

There are economic models of price versus volume and we have to assume that manufacturers know all that stuff.  They are perfectly happy with their pricing strategy and recognize all aspects of their markets.

[glarsson]

This is a complicated issue. Consider these methods of hacking more memory into a theoretical test instrument.

1. Replace RAM chip with a larger RAM chip.
2. Add more RAM chips in already populated sockets.
3. Add more RAM chips in unpopulated section of board.
4. Reverse engineer expansion port, design and build RAM board, plug in RAM board.
5. Move link to enable more of existing RAM chip.
6. Hack firmware to enable more of the existing RAM chip.
7. Generate hacked license code to enable more of the existing RAM chip.
8. Copy config memory from another test instrument to enable more of the existing RAM chip.

What is legal to do at home?
What is legal to help others do?
What is legal to sell help for?

To make it even more complicated, adding RAM might enable additional software functions you don't have a license for.

Now think about different countries ...

[testtube44]

I have decided this: If you sell it to me, I have all the rights to modify it.
Thank you for your input, but I have decided that I am just being a pussy here. I am going to buy a 50Mhz scope and hack it to 100Mhz, wish me luck!

[bd139]

Just to note when you buy it, all options are enabled for 30 hours or so anyway.

From the moral point of view if this was a car and you bought it and it did 100mph but after 30 hours it only did 50mph  unless you bought the go faster pack, what would you do?

[IanMacdonald]

Technically with software it all come down to the license.  If the software has 100 features and you only bought a license to use 1 of them, then you hack it or use an illegal keygen to unlock the remaining 99 you are using unlicensed software.  In the UK this would be a civil offence and it's very unlikely anything would come of it for an individual basis.

Copyright law only covers copying and public performance. The copying bit is relatively clear; what public performance means in terms of software is none too clear. 

It's hard to see how unlocking features involves either copying or public performance, though. Meanwhile patents, although probably not involved here anyway, only pertain to commercial usage of innovations.

As for computer software, it's obvious that many of the usage restrictions imposed by vendors such as Microsoft far exceed their remit under copyright. Their supporting argument for this, is that you had to agree to a EULA when you installed or first used the software. The difficulty there is proof that you did actually agree to it. In many cases it is possible to build a 'sysprepped' image of software which installs automatically without asking any questions at all. Since there is no way of telling if that was how it was installed, it cannot be assumed that you did in fact agree to the EULA.

The lowdown here is that most of this stuff has never been tested at court, and the reason it hasn't is that most businesses just aren't prepared to go through the process of a possibly lengthy and expensive court case.  It is rather a worrying situation, and you have to ask yourself how different these sorts of tactics are from piracy. If people are been intimidated into complying with restrictions which have no basis in law, then that is piracy by any other name.

Sooner or later it's bound to happen though, and when it does it could be a legal bombshell for the software giants. In most jurisdictions only one test case is needed to set a precedent. For example, they would have to present a case as to why, for example, copyright law allows them to restrict the number of people who log on to a server. Or, why an OEM computer owner can replace the HD, which contains the copyrighted software, but cannot replace the motherboard, which does not.  If they cannot satisfy a judge (or more likely a panel of judges) that this makes sense, then all such restrictions which do not involve 'copying or public performance' would have to be removed. 

I suspect that  if the likelihood of such a case arose, the vendor in question would just back down rather than risk being ruled against, because that would be an unmitigated disaster for their business model. Imagine if a 10,000-user site only had to buy a copy of Windows Server for each server, to be legitimate? 

[IanMacdonald]

Just to note when you buy it, all options are enabled for 30 hours or so anyway.

I'm really surprised it's tolerated on test equipment. In the IT industry this kind of time-bombing of paid items is heavily frowned upon. It sometimes arises with trial versions installed on home computers. Most businesses insist that nothing of that kind is installed, though. The danger is of becoming dependent on it, and it then stopping working.




One of my most embarrassing incidents was loading-up a couple of laptops for use on a North Sea platform. I overlooked that damned 42-day password expiry which Microsoft put in. The job was delayed, the passwords expired in the shipping crate and when the laptops were uncrated they would not work. I had to talk someone through a workaround using a heaven-knows-what-cost-a-minute Inmarsat link. The boss was furious. 

[paulca]

The difficulty there is proof that you did actually agree to it. In many cases it is possible to build a 'sysprepped' image of software which installs automatically without asking any questions at all. Since there is no way of telling if that was how it was installed, it cannot be assumed that you did in fact agree to the EULA.

That is technically against the Microsoft license.  That has been tested in court.  A charity was setting up and planning on donating recycled PCs to schools in Africa.  Microsoft intervened and stopped them as windows was still installed and as an absolutely minimum to transfer the license the install needed resys-prepped to display the EULA screen at next restart (an option on the sysprep command).  It turned out that employing engineers to sys prep all the PCs would cost the charity too much money and made the scheme unworkable and it was scrapped. 

[IanMacdonald]

That is technically against the Microsoft license.  That has been tested in court.  A charity was setting up and planning on donating recycled PCs to schools in Africa.  Microsoft intervened and stopped them as windows was still installed and as an absolutely minimum to transfer the license the install needed resys-prepped to display the EULA screen at next restart (an option on the sysprep command).  It turned out that employing engineers to sys prep all the PCs would cost the charity too much money and made the scheme unworkable and it was scrapped.

That may have been because the install was from a volume license allocated to one specific business. I doubt if it would apply to a retail product.  (Copyright law allows you to assign usage rights to a specific individual so that would be within the scope of copyright)

[paulca]

I work in software.  Sometimes in a position that would be equivalent to "buyer" in retail.  ie.  the person who chooses what software to use in a dev stack or whether to use a library or component in a solution.

Licensing is taken very seriously. Single projects can generate multi-million pounds from a single customer.

If you are doing it in your bedroom or home lab, nobody will really care.  If however you accidentally use a piece of software which has a commercial use clause in it's license within a million pound commercial solution, you can get stung pretty badly.  Suddenly what appeared to be a "FREE" code library turns into a not-very-free-at-all library.  Of course you don't notice, your multi-million pound software ships to your customers and nothing happens until a letter arrives with your legal team claiming tens of thousands of pounds in license fees, pay or we take you to court.

The larger the company the more seriously this gets taken as the larger the company the more likely a software vendor is to sue them.  In small start ups usually it would be someone like me alone making the decision.  In medium sized ventures it will be a legal team who analyse different licenses and approve or disapprove them.  Developers have an approved license list, anything else they need legal approval for.  In very large organisations like banks, every single piece of software, development environment and code library must be pass through approval.  You are literally prevented from installing that software beyond your dev environment.  Try using a random download library and your build will most likely fail.  Sneak in a static lib and someone will find it in an audit and come hunting your head.

Then there is the debacle of "viral licenses" if you miss use an open source license there are rare cases where your whole product has to open source.  This is mostly scare mongering as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny of logical thought.  There have been cases though and they were very costly for the vendors in question.  An example might have been Linksys and one of their router OSes ended up having to be open source published.

[bd139]

This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.

As someone who has been on the end of license audit a couple of times from MSFT, you can’t be compliant however hard you try. Last time it cost us a fair whack of cash because of a technicality in where something was installed.

Ergo we ported it to Postgres and python on CentOS+AWS and shelved the £80k in licenses to run the turd.

[glarsson]

This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.

Practically all open source is licensed (e.g. the L in GPL stands for License). You still have to check if the license is compatible with your use case and that the license is understood and accepted by your lawyers.

[paulca]

This incidentally why open source is winnng in some areas: no one wants to fuck around with licensing.

True, but there are gotchas, both actual gotchas and implied scar mongering that freaks out the legal team.

The GPL for example is banned in a lot of companies and the scaremongering campaign (probably funded by Microsoft et. al.) was effective in scaring legal teams into believing that even dynamically linking to a GPL code library could be interpreted a "creating a derived work" and requiring you to open source the rest of your project.

Most of this is non-sense and the FSF (Free software federation) have multiple articles debunking this myth.  However it has happened.  I believe it was Linksys who modified the Linux kernel to create the base for a router OS.  The FSF asked them to publish the code modification and they refused.  It went through court and as the kernel version in the Linksys OS was indeed a derived work based on the GPL linux code it has to be open sourced.  Linksys took a big hit, but turned it around.  They embraced it and published the code and even made easily flash-able versions of the router allowing others to customise the OS further.  The popularity of that router platform exploded and Linksys made their money.

Microsoft has had to publish a few bits of Internet Explorer code because it incorporated the GPL GZip library code.  Note that MS did not have to open source IE.  I don't think anyone could take seeing that code anyway.

The GPL issue was addressed with dozens of derived open source licenses which reword and redefine the concept of "derived work".  The Lesser GPL, MIT License, and many others were launched or specifically re-versioned to make the terms clearer.

I personally have walked this fine line a few times.  Modifying open source code to create a solution for a customer.  It's a fine line because the open source licenses supports creating customisation for a specific project or customer without releasing the code as long as the software is not distributed.  However if you in future distribute that software more generally then you must publish the complete code.  Of course then you get into a legal argument over which bits you are required to release.  If you customised an open source web application and distributed it (and does putting it online constitute distribution?), you might have to release the code for your modifications, but would you need to release your whole product including back end scripts and other components?  My test for this is to ask... if you ran that web application on Microsoft IIS would it need to open source too?  Which is obviously ridiculous.

[Muttley Snickers]

I don't know about this particular user enhancement being against the law or illegal and I don't ever recall Rigol or its distributors releasing a formal statement indicating to users that they may be in breach of some peculiar agreement. My concern would be that the device recorded a change in a system log file which could then be retrieved by a repair center to indicate an unauthorised modification had been made thus voiding any remaining warranty.

What is criminal though it appears that TEquipment is charging twenty five bucks US to send an email for the individual options license key as indicated on their Ebay page.   

TEquipment Ebay Page.
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Rigol-SA-DS1000Z-Options/262579398039?   

TEquipment Rigol Options Page.
https://www.tequipment.net/search/?F_Keyword=DS1000Z%20Option