The devices were on life support provided by the illegal use of FTDI drivers, FTDI figured out how to and turned off the switch. I believe it was within their rights to do so. No one is stopping you resurrecting the corpses by writing some other drivers or using the legal ones on Linux.
The use wasn't illegal. Most people had the drivers installed automatically without being shown the EULA
I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.
And DMCA Since when is DMCA applicable to a company in Scotland (UK) and laws broken e.g. in France, Germany or Netherlands?
Maybe you should look up the EU InfoSoc directive which also protects "Technological Protection Measures" and in some ways is more restrictive than the DMCA.
That is still not relevant, Rufus, sorry.
The directive text is here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
a) The directive talks about "circumvention of effective technological measures" (btw, DMCA has the same requirement). That alone makes your theory wrong - VID/PID are not designed to act as a technological measure to prevent access to anything (let alone an effective one!), they are simply identifiers facilitating finding of a correct driver by the host. So your argument is falling apart right there.
b) The directive has provisions for interoperability
c) There is also section 48, so even if we accept that the borking of end-user's device is a "technological measure" in the sense of the directive, then:QuoteSuch legal protection should be provided in respect of technological measures that effectively restrict acts not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, rights related to copyright or the sui generis right in databases without, however, preventing the normal operation of electronic equipment and its technological development. ...
d) The redress in case of a copyright violation has to be sought according to law - the directive leaves that to the individual countries to implement. E.g. in France that means sending cease&desists first, then a court action. There is *zero* provision for vigilantism and breaking of supposedly illegal stuff, no matter what the right owners may wish for. You call that "due process" in the US, I believe.
Rufus, you have no clue what you are talking about and only grasping at straws. Better read (and understand) the stuff you are trying to use to support your arguments first next time.
Sorry man, no cigar.
I'd like to see how copyright can disallow use of software for other than intended purposes. After all copyright only deals with rights to distribute 'a work' not how 'the work' is used.
If you can agree that FTDI owns the driver IP, and you own the clone. Then FTDI can modify the driver to not function with the clone. They are not allowed to modify the clone to not work with the driver. Pretty simple no?
FTDI like HDCP does not own the device yet it modifies them and it is allowed to do so. FTDI driver is just revoking the number. Its a joke to put it back (unlike HDCP revoking) but both modify a user's device automatically.
It isn't a nice thing to do but it isn't illegal. The mfg of the fake chips is doing very illegal stuff however.
A legal clone would use its own VCP driver and have no brand relation at all to FTDI other than it functions the same with completely cloned everything that another company put work into making.
FTDI did a bad thing in revoking the device just like HDCP is bad but it isn't illegal.
If you can agree that FTDI owns the driver IP, and you own the clone. Then FTDI can modify the driver to not function with the clone. They are not allowed to modify the clone to not work with the driver. Pretty simple no?
FTDI like HDCP does not own the device yet it modifies them and it is allowed to do so. FTDI driver is just revoking the number. Its a joke to put it back (unlike HDCP revoking) but both modify a user's device automatically.
It isn't a nice thing to do but it isn't illegal. The mfg of the fake chips is doing very illegal stuff however.
A legal clone would use its own VCP driver and have no brand relation at all to FTDI other than it functions the same with completely cloned everything that another company put work into making.
You're assuming they have legal ownership over the VID and PID, which I don't believe they do, for a number of reasons stated previously in this very long thread. Also can we remove all the HDCP discussion, its meant to prevent direct copies of video content, not to prevent you from watching CSI or a clone of the show because you should be watching NCIS. (I hate all the metaphors, its like comparing apples to oranges, so I'll refrain from using them.)
Also they didn't change the VID, only the PID, can you justify only modifying the one?
You've been posting non-stop which is pretty determined, so I wonder which machine shop at UBC you work at being former UBC engineering student.
I'm quite amazed that DigilentMinds.com and others have had the stamina to continue arguing with you.
FTDI did a bad thing in revoking the device just like HDCP is bad but it isn't illegal.
We will just have to agree to disagree, and our opinions matter very little-- this will all have to be decided in the courtroom.
I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.
FTDI did a bad thing in revoking the device just like HDCP is bad but it isn't illegal.
Please ask a lawyer to explain to you why FTDI committed a crime. Based on the local law it's either willful damage to property or computer sabotage / cyber-whatever. FTDI knows that. That's also the reason for the lousy response of the CEO. If FTDI would admit any wrongdoing they would be liable for any damages immediately. It's a game to protect the company (and themselves vs. share holders) and to make it harder for victims to request any compensation.
I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.
Technically, it would be a violation of their LICENSE, not a violation of their copyright. Redistributing the drivers would be a violation of their copyright.
Now I can't violate their license, because I have NEVER BEEN ASKED TO AGREE TO THEIR LICENSE. They choose to include their software with Windows and they choose to never require the end user to even read, much less to agree to their license. It is idiotic to call someone in violation of something they don't even know exists. They plug in a device they purchased and for all the end user knows, Microsoft made the driver in Windows to make it work.
Now the user has a device with a legal clone in it, and by violating nothing they have agreed to, FTDI willfully destroys their property. It really is quite simple.
Again the device is in no way "destroyed" FTDI's drivers do not have to legally interoperable or even allow them to keep the same PID they report. Altering the PID is not a damaging action and only prevents it from working with FTDI's drivers, third party programs and tools can still use the chip normally.
Again the device is in no way "destroyed" FTDI's drivers do not have to legally interoperable or even allow them to keep the same PID they report. Altering the PID is not a damaging action and only prevents it from working with FTDI's drivers, third party programs and tools can still use the chip normally.
I design hardware and write firmware for that hardware. There are times when this involves the use of USB as a transport mechanism, and so I have had many occasions where I has to deal with that. So, as yo might imagine, I am well versed in how the USB "plug-n-play" paradigm works, and am familiar with the various ways that the various O/S's deal with these devices, including the way they get enumerated and assigned to various drivers.
Many times the *only* way an O/S assigns a driver is to *only* look at the VID/PID pair. BUT, there *are* instances where the VID/PID pair is *not* unique, and so the O/S must then look at the descriptors to determine what driver to attach to the device. There are other device characteristics that can be used to develop a unique signature that positively identifies the correct driver to use. Note that this same scheme is used on the PCI bus, and there are instances where the VID/PID are not unique also.
So, while the VID/PID pair is important, one cannot assume that they are unique [because not everyone plays by the rules-- even legitimate devices]. Since it is impossible for the O/S to predict every possible device that might be plugged in, and to then know what to do with them, there is a heavy burden placed on the driver to make the final determination as to whether it is attached to a compatible device [or not], and to do the appropriate thing.
It seems that FTDI has a driver that can determine if the device attached to it is a genuine FTDI device. The proper thing to do if the device is *NOT* a genuine FTDI device is to simply not respond to it [i.e. through any data coming from the device into the "bit bucket", and not register the device with the O/S as a VCP]. I'm pretty sure this is the mandated behavior proposed by the USB-IF group, and since FTDI belongs to this group, they must have signed an agreement that states how they will deal with a non-compliant device [and that does not include modifying the device in any way].
FTDI [decided] that they would go further than just ignoring a non-FTDI device, and they would *modify* the device so that it would never be recognized by any driver [on *any* O/S] as a genuine FTDI device. They did not have to do this for interchangeability-- they did it to intentionally "brick" the device-- even for legitimate uses on another O/S where they don't own the driver IP. This, in law, is called a "tort", and it *is* actionable. The US federal government might also decide to classify this as "cyber terrorism", which not so surprisingly is a major crime. I don't know what they are going to do. We will see. Things might get real interesting.
.... probably a fitting end for a fascist company like FTDI.
Godwin's law proven at last.
Fascism is a philosophy and a behavior-- and you don't have to belong to anything like the NAZI party to be a fascist. We have fascists right here in the USA that are congressmen and senators. We also have communists [collectivists] and other undesirable types. Hitler and/or Mussolini had no monopoly on fascism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
QuoteAgain the device is in no way "destroyed" FTDI's drivers do not have to legally interoperable or even allow them to keep the same PID they report. Altering the PID is not a damaging action and only prevents it from working with FTDI's drivers, third party programs and tools can still use the chip normally.Action that deliberately renders something into a state that requires any effort, time, or money to revert to its original state constitutes criminal damage. A "real-world' example would be letting someone's tyres down.
I have been sitting here and trying to think of someone not using a clone on this forum.
My very old Viewsonic monitor is a clone! It is a clone of IBM's VGA monitor and is very much better.
My USB and PS2 keyboards are clones. In fact they are clones of clones. One is a DELL clone of a Microsoft Clone which was a clone.
I can't think of a chip in the computer that is not based directly or indirectly on a clone.
FTDI just trying to identify a clone could be a criminal act.
C
Well then we should go after HDCP first because they have disabled devices in the past and probably will in the future as well. There are no legal cases against HDCP to my knowledge that have succeeded in this respect. FTDI just revoked the devices PID it still electrically is fine and works normally otherwise.
Linux just needs a fake clone driver update and windows will have a third party one too I'm sure given the level of interest. The fake chips are fake and bypassing the DRM is a joke. HDCP has caused me to spend time, money, effort, and even prevented perfectly working hardware to not function and I doubt I can get a criminal case going off that.
Letting someone's tyres down is still physically damaging as leaving the tires flat for any length of time can cause permanent physical damage to the tyre and or wheel and is not even reversible by simple re-inflation. Using linux auto-update and it magically working again isn't remotely the same. On windows Microsoft isn't likely to bypass FTDI for us so simple tools can bypass FTDI's DRM.
Also they didn't change the VID, only the PID, can you justify only modifying the one?
And now your company has "standing" to sue them in court. Have fun!
Is the device completely disintegrated? No.
Is the device usable (as you're inferring) by the end user? Also no.
Is there a difference as far as the end user is concerned? Still no.
You just answered yes to the device is physically damaged (also false it in no way is even remotely physically damaged)
You also just said it is unusable (false linux has an update already) and countless end user programs work with it)
You also said is there a different to the end user, well I'm an end user and I can tell the difference so you statement is false based on the mere existence of me an end user that doesn't agree with you, I detect fakes and report them as a responsible end user should.
etc
The driver is copyrighted and trademarked and abusing the not illegal to abuse PID/VID system to trick a driver
Yeah, the compatible and clone counterfeit chip maker are bad boys for letting you, the windows user in a gray area when using the official FTDI driver.
It's not nice, but not illegal. It's the point of a compatible to be compatible.
The EULA is not agreed by most people using recent windows, there is no EULA on th FOSS driver, so most people did not agree to respect anything in the EULA.
There being no alternative driver with any ID is a clear admission that the device was always dead.Is there any chance I can convince you to say "the device was always unsupported"?
To say "it was always dead", even though users had clearly been using them for many years, is absurd (if a bit Michelangeloic). That's like suggesting that, upon its confiscation due to it having been stolen, a car that you've been driving around in for 15 years never actually moved a millimeter.
If you could convince other people not to keep saying the FTDI drivers killed, bricked, damaged, rendered inoperable, etc the device?
The devices were on life support provided by the illegal use of FTDI drivers, FTDI figured out how to and turned off the switch. I believe it was within their rights to do so. No one is stopping you resurrecting the corpses by writing some other drivers or using the legal ones on Linux.
The use wasn't illegal. Most people had the drivers installed automatically without being shown the EULA (in fact it was buried in an INF file somewhere) or knowing about the terms attached to the drivers. Clearly you can't break a contract that you haven't agreed to and haven't seen. Even if it is shown, whether the EULA is legally binding is questionable.
Whether FTDI could be prosecuted for what they did depends on whether evidence could be found showing they did it intentionally.
I am not a lawyer. I find it hard to see how an EULA makes any difference. The drivers (like all software) are copyright. The copyright holder FTDI allow the use of their drivers under certain conditions. No agreement is required it is just a fact and using their drivers outside of those conditions is an illegal violation of their copyright. Not agreeing that you are aware of those conditions would at best only support a defence of ignorance for that violation.
Technically, it would be a violation of their LICENSE, not a violation of their copyright. Redistributing the drivers would be a violation of their copyright.
Now I can't violate their license, because I have NEVER BEEN ASKED TO AGREE TO THEIR LICENSE. They choose to include their software with Windows and they choose to never require the end user to even read, much less to agree to their license. It is idiotic to call someone in violation of something they don't even know exists. They plug in a device they purchased and for all the end user knows, Microsoft made the driver in Windows to make it work.
Now the user has a device with a legal clone in it, and by violating nothing they have agreed to, FTDI willfully destroys their property. It really is quite simple.
Microsoft has terms that people agreed to before buying or during install (wait a second, please refer the EU case that install/run time EULAs are void that makes no sense what happens if you don't buy something and they display a must read prompt that makes zero sense) which covers Microsoft services and if you don't like automatic updates and automatic terms then you should disable it. (Which is easy to do and it gives you the choice right directly as well)
What a load of bullshit. Microsoft and FTDI are two entirely separate entities. Agreeing to terms from Microsoft can in no way mean to automatically agree to any terms that a third party may come up with in the future, let alone with any third party terms that the customer has never been shown.
Like, i have a contract with my landloard to rent the place i am in. That does not mean that i have to blindly agree to any terms that, for example, the electricity company makes to supply me with electricity in said place. It doesn't matter at all what terms and conditions have been agreed to between the user and Microsoft, as far as third party stuff is concerned. Those terms only apply between MS and the customer, and no one else.
Of course, MS could say "well, yes, we adopt FTDI's terms now, and thus they are ours as well". But in that case the user has to be notified of that fact, and still shown those terms.
Greetings,
Chris
The Dutch criminal law says 2 years in jail or a 20k euro fine if you render something which isn't yours useless:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_29-10-2014#TweedeBoek_TitelXXVII_Artikel350
Well if you want to press on with bullshit legal arguments I'll raise you with the DMCA. The VID and PID of a USB device could reasonably be considered to be an access control method for drivers which may be copyrighted.
Anyone using a non-genuine FTDI USB device with VID and PID causing access to copyrighted FTDI drivers without licence would be guilty of circumventing access controls and people selling such USB devices guilty of trafficking circumvention tools.
Well then we should go after HDCP first because they have disabled devices in the past and probably will in the future as well. There are no legal cases against HDCP to my knowledge that have succeeded in this respect. FTDI just revoked the devices PID it still electrically is fine and works normally otherwise.
Linux just needs a fake clone driver update and windows will have a third party one too I'm sure given the level of interest. The fake chips are fake and bypassing the DRM is a joke. HDCP has caused me to spend time, money, effort, and even prevented perfectly working hardware to not function and I doubt I can get a criminal case going off that.
Letting someone's tyres down is still physically damaging as leaving the tires flat for any length of time can cause permanent physical damage to the tyre and or wheel and is not even reversible by simple re-inflation. Using linux auto-update and it magically working again isn't remotely the same. On windows Microsoft isn't likely to bypass FTDI for us so simple tools can bypass FTDI's DRM.
You're still avoiding my very basic question:
Can you agree that changing the PID stopped the Linux driver from working until about 2 days ago when a patch was released to specifically address the issue caused by FTDI changing the PID? Yes, No? Feel free to elaborate.
Can you agree that for nearly a month (from the release date of FTDI driver until the release of the Linux patch) the clones were modified to the point where they would not work with Linux? Yes, No? Feel free to elaborate.
Can you agree that any unpatched Linux system, especially embedded systems, will no longer function with a clone which has been exposed to the FTDI windows driver? Yes, No? Feel free to elaborate.