Canon legal response
Posted Jan 12, 2013 8:08 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata
In reply to: Canon legal response
Parent article: Testing Magic Lantern 2.3
But you are the lawyer IIRC.
I am not an IP lawyer, so I'm about as credible on this as you are. (A great example of how screwed up law practice licensing is in the US is that a contract/corporation lawyer like me can legally represent someone in a copyright case, but you can't).
But I've learned a lot about IP law from LWN comments and similar places, and I suspect the legal tool Canon allegedly wields to protect its X market from competition by modders is the right under copyright law to exclude others from preparing a derivative copy. This would be similar to when the copyright owners of the Titanic movie stopped an editor from modifying VHS copies of the movie to make them PG by cutting out two pieces of tape with a knife. (He was doing this as a business, and sold the service of editing a tape owned by the customer).
I understand and support most principles of copyright law, but I have to say I don't get the exclusive right to prepare derivative works.
It could also just be part of the contract of sale - the legally enforceable bargain the parties made when the camera changed hands. Buyers often agree not to reverse engineer, and this isn't much different from that.
to post comments)