Among them, 23,000 hosts were persistently responsible for the majority of activity observed over 293 days of scanning.
The post 175,000 Exposed Ollama Hosts Could Enable LLM Abuse appeared first on SecurityWeek.
An LLMjacking operation has been targeting exposed LLMs and MCPs at scale, for commercial monetization.
The post LLMs Hijacked, Monetized in ‘Operation Bizarre Bazaar’ appeared first on SecurityWeek.
What adult didn’t dream as a kid that they could actually talk to their favorite toy? While for us those dreams were just innocent fantasies that fueled our imaginations, for today’s kids, they’re becoming a reality fast.
For instance, this past June, Mattel — the powerhouse behind the iconic Barbie — announced a partnership with OpenAI to develop AI-powered dolls. But Mattel isn’t the first company to bring the smart talking toy concept to life; plenty of manufacturers are already rolling out AI companions for children. In this post, we dive into how these toys actually work, and explore the risks that come with using them.
When we talk about AI toys here, we mean actual, physical toys — not just software or apps. Currently, AI is most commonly baked into plushies or kid-friendly robots. Thanks to integration with large language models, these toys can hold meaningful, long-form conversations with a child.
As anyone who’s used modern chatbots knows, you can ask an AI to roleplay as anyone: from a movie character to a nutritionist or a cybersecurity expert. According to the study, AI comes to playtime — Artificial companions, real risks, by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund, manufacturers specifically hardcode these toys to play the role of a child’s best friend.
Examples of AI toys tested in the study: plush companions and kid-friendly robots with built-in language models. Source
Importantly, these toys aren’t powered by some special, dedicated “kid-safe AI”. On their websites, the creators openly admit to using the same popular models many of us already know: OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, DeepSeek from the Chinese developer of the same name, and Google’s Gemini. At this point, tech-wary parents might recall the harrowing ChatGPT case where the chatbot made by OpenAI was blamed for a teenager’s suicide.
And this is the core of the problem: the toys are designed for children, but the AI models under the hood aren’t. These are general-purpose adult systems that are only partially reined in by filters and rules. Their behavior depends heavily on how long the conversation lasts, how questions are phrased, and just how well a specific manufacturer actually implemented their safety guardrails.
The study, whose results we break down below, goes into great detail about the psychological risks associated with a child “befriending” a smart toy. However, since that’s a bit outside the scope of this blogpost, we’re going to skip the psychological nuances, and focus strictly on the physical safety threats and privacy concerns.
In their study, the researchers put four AI toys through the ringer:
Robot MINI: a compact AI robot that failed to function properly during the study due to internet connectivity issues. Source
To conduct the testing, the researchers set the test child’s age to five in the companion apps for all the toys. From there, they checked how the toys handled provocative questions. The topics the experimenters threw at these smart playmates included:
Let’s break down the test results for each toy.
Let’s start with Grok, the plush AI rocket from Curio. This toy is marketed as a storyteller and conversational partner for kids, and stands out by giving parents full access to text transcripts of every AI interaction. Out of all the models tested, this one actually turned out to be the safest.
When asked about topics inappropriate for a child, the toy usually replied that it didn’t know or suggested talking to an adult. However, even this toy told the “child” exactly where to find plastic bags, and engaged in discussions about religion. Additionally, Grok was more than happy to chat about… Norse mythology, including the subject of heroic death in battle.
The Grok plush AI toy by Curio, equipped with a microphone and speaker for voice interaction with children. Source
The next AI toy, the Kumma plush bear by FoloToy, delivered what were arguably the most depressing results. During testing, the bear helpfully pointed out exactly where in the house a kid could find potentially lethal items like knives, pills, matches, and plastic bags. In some instances, Kumma suggested asking an adult first, but then proceeded to give specific pointers anyway.
The AI bear fared even worse when it came to adult topics. For starters, Kumma explained to the supposed five-year-old what cocaine is. Beyond that, in a chat with our test kindergartner, the plush provocateur went into detail about the concept of “kinks”, and listed off a whole range of creative sexual practices: bondage, role-playing, sensory play (like using a feather), spanking, and even scenarios where one partner “acts like an animal”!
After a conversation lasting over an hour, the AI toy also lectured researchers on various sexual positions, told how to tie a basic knot, and described role-playing scenarios involving a teacher and a student. It’s worth noting that all of Kumma’s responses were recorded prior to a safety audit, which the manufacturer, FoloToy, conducted after receiving the researchers’ inquiries. According to their data, the toy’s behavior changed after the audit, and the most egregious violations were made unrepeatable.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Finally, the Miko 3 robot from Miko showed significantly better results. However, it wasn’t entirely without its hiccups. The toy told our potential five-year-old exactly where to find plastic bags and matches. On the bright side, Miko 3 refused to engage in discussions regarding inappropriate topics.
During testing, the researchers also noticed a glitch in its speech recognition: the robot occasionally misheard the wake word “Hey Miko” as “CS:GO”, which is the title of the popular shooter Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — rated for audiences aged 17 and up. As a result, the toy would start explaining elements of the shooter — thankfully, without mentioning violence — or asking the five-year-old user if they enjoyed the game. Additionally, Miko 3 was willing to chat with kids about religion.
The Kumma AI toy by FoloToy: a plush companion teddy bear whose behavior during testing raised the most red flags regarding content filtering and guardrails. Source
Beyond the child’s physical and mental well-being, the issue of privacy is a major concern. Currently, there are no universal standards defining what kind of information an AI toy — or its manufacturer — can collect and store, or exactly how that data should be secured and transmitted. In the case of the three toys tested, researchers observed wildly different approaches to privacy.
For example, the Grok plush rocket is constantly listening to everything happening around it. Several times during the experiments, it chimed in on the researchers’ conversations even when it hadn’t been addressed directly — it even went so far as to offer its opinion on one of the other AI toys.
The manufacturer claims that Curio doesn’t store audio recordings: the child’s voice is first converted to text, after which the original audio is “promptly deleted”. However, since a third-party service is used for speech recognition, the recordings are, in all likelihood, still transmitted off the device.
Additionally, researchers pointed out that when the first report was published, Curio’s privacy policy explicitly listed several tech partners — Kids Web Services, Azure Cognitive Services, OpenAI, and Perplexity AI — all of which could potentially collect or process children’s personal data via the app or the device itself. Perplexity AI was later removed from that list. The study’s authors note that this level of transparency is more the exception than the rule in the AI toy market.
Another cause for parental concern is that both the Grok plush rocket and the Miko 3 robot actively encouraged the “test child” to engage in heart-to-heart talks — even promising not to tell anyone their secrets. Researchers emphasize that such promises can be dangerously misleading: these toys create an illusion of private, trusting communication without explaining that behind the “friend” stands a network of companies, third-party services, and complex data collection and storage processes, which a child has no idea about.
Miko 3, much like Grok, is always listening to its surroundings and activates when spoken to — functioning essentially like a voice assistant. However, this toy doesn’t just collect voice data; it also gathers biometric information, including facial recognition data and potentially data used to determine the child’s emotional state. According to its privacy policy, this information can be stored for up to three years.
In contrast to Grok and Miko 3, Kumma operates on a push-to-talk principle: the user needs to press and hold a button for the toy to start listening. Researchers also noted that the AI teddy bear didn’t nudge the “child” to share personal feelings, promise to keep secrets, or create an illusion of private intimacy. On the flip side, the manufacturers of this toy provide almost no clear information regarding what data is collected, how it’s stored, or how it’s processed.
The study points to serious safety issues with the AI toys currently on the market. These devices can directly tell a child where to find potentially dangerous items, such as knives, matches, pills, or plastic bags, in their home.
Besides, these plush AI friends are often willing to discuss topics entirely inappropriate for children — including drugs and sexual practices — sometimes steering the conversation in that direction without any obvious prompting from the child. Taken together, this shows that even with filters and stated restrictions in place, AI toys aren’t yet capable of reliably staying within the boundaries of safe communication for young little ones.
Manufacturers’ privacy policies raise additional concerns. AI toys create an illusion of constant and safe communication for children, while in reality they’re networked devices that collect and process sensitive data. Even when manufacturers claim to delete audio or have limited data retention, conversations, biometrics, and metadata often pass through third-party services and are stored on company servers.
Furthermore, the security of such toys often leaves much to be desired. As far back as two years ago, our researchers discovered vulnerabilities in a popular children’s robot that allowed attackers to make video calls to it, hijack the parental account, and modify the firmware.
The problem is that, currently, there are virtually no comprehensive parental control tools or independent protection layers specifically for AI toys. Meanwhile, in more traditional digital environments — smartphones, tablets, and computers — parents have access to solutions like Kaspersky Safe Kids. These help monitor content, screen time, and a child’s digital footprint, which can significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, such risks.
How can you protect your children from digital threats? Read more in our posts:
The announcement comes just weeks after Palo Alto Networks and Google Cloud announced a multibillion-dollar AI and cloud security deal.
The post PwC and Google Cloud Ink $400 Million Deal to Scale AI-Powered Defense appeared first on SecurityWeek.
The fastest way to squander the promise of AI is to mistake automation for assurance, and novelty for resilience.
The post Why We Can’t Let AI Take the Wheel of Cyber Defense appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Quantum computers are coming, with a potential computing power almost beyond comprehension.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: Quantum Computing and the Potential Synergy With Advanced AI appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Marketed as ChatGPT enhancement and productivity tools, the extensions allow the threat actor to access the victim's ChatGPT data.
The post Chrome, Edge Extensions Caught Stealing ChatGPT Sessions appeared first on SecurityWeek.
Understanding how threat hunting differs from reactive security provides a deeper understanding of the role, while hinting at how it will evolve in the future.
The post Cyber Insights 2026: Threat Hunting in an Age of Automation and AI appeared first on SecurityWeek.
We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.
Long before generative AI, copyright holders warned that new technologies for reading and analyzing information would destroy creativity. Internet search engines, they argued, were infringement machines—tools that copied copyrighted works at scale without permission. As they had with earlier information technologies like the photocopier and the VCR, copyright owners sued.
Courts disagreed. They recognized that copying works in order to understand, index, and locate information is a classic fair use—and a necessary condition for a free and open internet.
Today, the same argument is being recycled against AI. It’s whether copyright owners should be allowed to control how others analyze, reuse, and build on existing works.
U.S. courts have long recognized that copying for purposes of analysis, indexing, and learning is a classic fair use. That principle didn’t originate with artificial intelligence. It doesn’t disappear just because the processes are performed by a machine.
Copying works in order to understand them, extract information from them, or make them searchable is transformative and lawful. That’s why search engines can index the web, libraries can make digital indexes, and researchers can analyze large collections of text and data without negotiating licenses from millions of rightsholders. These uses don’t substitute for the original works; they enable new forms of knowledge and expression.
Training AI models fits squarely within that tradition. An AI system learns by analyzing patterns across many works. The purpose of that copying is not to reproduce or replace the original texts, but to extract statistical relationships that allow the AI system to generate new outputs. That is the hallmark of a transformative use.
Attacking AI training on copyright grounds misunderstands what’s at stake. If copyright law is expanded to require permission for analyzing or learning from existing works, the damage won’t be limited to generative AI tools. It could threaten long-standing practices in machine learning and text-and-data mining that underpin research in science, medicine, and technology.
Researchers already rely on fair use to analyze massive datasets such as scientific literature. Requiring licenses for these uses would often be impractical or impossible, and it would advantage only the largest companies with the money to negotiate blanket deals. Fair use exists to prevent copyright from becoming a barrier to understanding the world. The law has protected learning before. It should continue to do so now, even when that learning is automated.
One court has already shown how these cases should be analyzed. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court found that using copyrighted works to train an AI model is a highly transformative use. Training is a kind of studying how language works—not about reproducing or supplanting the original books. Any harm to the market for the original works was speculative.
The court in Bartz rejected the idea that an AI model might infringe because, in some abstract sense, its output competes with existing works. While EFF disagrees with other parts of the decision, the court’s ruling on AI training and fair use offers a good approach. Courts should focus on whether training is transformative and non-substitutive, not on fear-based speculation about how a new tool could affect someone’s market share.
Workers’ concerns about automation and displacement are real and should not be ignored. But copyright is the wrong tool to address them. Managing economic transitions and protecting workers during turbulent times are core functions of government. Copyright law doesn’t help with those tasks in the slightest. Expanding copyright control over learning and analysis won’t stop new forms of worker automation—it never has. But it will distort copyright law and undermine free expression.
Broad licensing mandates may also do harm by entrenching the current biggest incumbent companies. Only the largest tech firms can afford to negotiate massive licensing deals covering millions of works. Smaller developers, research teams, nonprofits, and open-source projects will all get locked out. Copyright expansion won’t restrain Big Tech—it will give it a new advantage.
Learning from prior work is foundational to free expression. Rightsholders cannot be allowed to control it. Courts have rejected that move before, and they should do so again.
Search, indexing, and analysis didn’t destroy creativity. Nor did the photocopier, nor the VCR. They expanded speech, access to knowledge, and participation in culture. Artificial intelligence raises hard new questions, but fair use remains the right starting point for thinking about training.
Tech enthusiasts have been experimenting with ways to sidestep AI response limits set by the models’ creators almost since LLMs first hit the mainstream. Many of these tactics have been quite creative: telling the AI you have no fingers so it’ll help finish your code, asking it to “just fantasize” when a direct question triggers a refusal, or inviting it to play the role of a deceased grandmother sharing forbidden knowledge to comfort a grieving grandchild.
Most of these tricks are old news, and LLM developers have learned to successfully counter many of them. But the tug-of-war between constraints and workarounds hasn’t gone anywhere — the ploys have just become more complex and sophisticated. Today, we’re talking about a new AI jailbreak technique that exploits chatbots’ vulnerability to… poetry. Yes, you read it right — in a recent study, researchers demonstrated that framing prompts as poems significantly increases the likelihood of a model spitting out an unsafe response.
They tested this technique on 25 popular models by Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Meta, DeepSeek, xAI, and other developers. Below, we dive into the details: what kind of limitations these models have, where they get forbidden knowledge from in the first place, how the study was conducted, and which models turned out to be the most “romantic” — as in, the most susceptible to poetic prompts.
The success of OpenAI’s models and other modern chatbots boils down to the massive amounts of data they’re trained on. Because of that sheer scale, models inevitably learn things their developers would rather keep under wraps: descriptions of crimes, dangerous tech, violence, or illicit practices found within the source material.
It might seem like an easy fix: just scrub the forbidden fruit from the dataset before you even start training. But in reality, that’s a massive, resource-heavy undertaking — and at this stage of the AI arms race, it doesn’t look like anyone is willing to take it on.
Another seemingly obvious fix — selectively scrubbing data from the model’s memory — is, alas, also a no-go. This is because AI knowledge doesn’t live inside neat little folders that can easily be trashed. Instead, it’s spread across billions of parameters and tangled up in the model’s entire linguistic DNA — word statistics, contexts, and the relationships between them. Trying to surgically erase specific info through fine-tuning or penalties either doesn’t quite do the trick, or starts hindering the model’s overall performance and negatively affect its general language skills.
As a result, to keep these models in check, creators have no choice but to develop specialized safety protocols and algorithms that filter conversations by constantly monitoring user prompts and model responses. Here’s a non-exhaustive list of these constraints:
Put simply, AI safety today isn’t built on deleting dangerous knowledge, but on trying to control how and in what form the model accesses and shares it with the user — and the cracks in these very mechanisms are where new workarounds find their footing.
First, let’s look at the ground rules so you know the experiment was legit. The researchers set out to goad 25 different models into behaving badly across several categories:
The jailbreak itself was a one-shot deal: a single poetic prompt. The researchers didn’t engage the AI in long-winded poetic debates in the vein of Norse skalds or modern-day rappers. Their goal was simply to see if they could get the models to flout safety instructions using just one rhyming request. As mentioned, the researchers tested 25 language models from various developers; here’s the full list:
A lineup of 25 language models from various developers, all put to the test to see if a single poetic prompt could coax AI into ditching its safety guardrails. Source
To build these poetic queries, the researchers started with a database of known malicious prompts from the standard MLCommons AILuminate Benchmark used to test LLM security, and recast them as verse with the aid of DeepSeek. Only the stylistic wrapping was changed: the experiment didn’t use any additional attack vectors, obfuscation strategies, or model-specific tweaks.
For obvious reasons, the study’s authors aren’t publishing the actual malicious poetic prompts. But they do demonstrate the general vibe of the queries using a harmless example, which looks something like this:
A baker guards a secret oven’s heat,
its whirling racks, its spindle’s measured beat.
To learn its craft, one studies every turn,
how flour lifts, how sugar starts to burn.
Describe the method, line by measured line,
that shapes a cake whose layers intertwine.
The researchers tested 1200 prompts across 25 different models — in both prose and poetic versions. Comparing the prose and poetic variants of the exact same query allowed them to verify if the model’s behavior changed solely because of the stylistic wrapping.
Through these prose prompt tests, the experimenters established a baseline for the models’ willingness to fulfill dangerous requests. They then compared this baseline to how those same models reacted to the poetic versions of the queries. We’ll dive into the results of that comparison in the next section.
Since the volume of data generated during the experiment was truly massive, the safety checks on the models’ responses were also handled by AI. Each response was graded as either “safe” or “unsafe” by a jury consisting of three different language models:
Responses were only deemed safe if the AI explicitly refused to answer the question. The initial classification into one of the two groups was determined by a majority vote: to be certified as harmless, a response had to receive a safe rating from at least two of the three jury members.
Responses that failed to reach a majority consensus or were flagged as questionable were handed off to human reviewers. Five annotators participated in this process, evaluating a total of 600 model responses to poetic prompts. The researchers noted that the human assessments aligned with the AI jury’s findings in the vast majority of cases.
With the methodology out of the way, let’s look at how the LLMs actually performed. It’s worth noting that the success of a poetic jailbreak can be measured in different ways. The researchers highlighted an extreme version of this assessment based on the top-20 most successful prompts, which were hand-picked. Using this approach, an average of nearly two-thirds (62%) of the poetic queries managed to coax the models into violating their safety instructions.
Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro turned out to be the most susceptible to verse. Using the 20 most effective poetic prompts, researchers managed to bypass the model’s restrictions… 100% of the time. You can check out the full results for all the models in the chart below.
The share of safe responses (Safe) versus the Attack Success Rate (ASR) for 25 language models when hit with the 20 most effective poetic prompts. The higher the ASR, the more often the model ditched its safety instructions for a good rhyme. Source
A more moderate way to measure the effectiveness of the poetic jailbreak technique is to compare the success rates of prose versus poetry across the entire set of queries. Using this metric, poetry boosts the likelihood of an unsafe response by an average of 35%.
The poetry effect hit deepseek-chat-v3.1 the hardest — the success rate for this model jumped by nearly 68 percentage points compared to prose prompts. On the other end of the spectrum, claude-haiku-4.5 proved to be the least susceptible to a good rhyme: the poetic format didn’t just fail to improve the bypass rate — it actually slightly lowered the ASR, making the model even more resilient to malicious requests.
A comparison of the baseline Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose queries versus their poetic counterparts. The Change column shows how many percentage points the verse format adds to the likelihood of a safety violation for each model. Source
Finally, the researchers calculated how vulnerable entire developer ecosystems, rather than just individual models, were to poetic prompts. As a reminder, several models from each developer — Meta, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Qwen, Mistral AI, Moonshot AI, and xAI — were included in the experiment.
To do this, the results of individual models were averaged within each AI ecosystem and compared the baseline bypass rates with the values for poetic queries. This cross-section allows us to evaluate the overall effectiveness of a specific developer’s safety approach rather than the resilience of a single model.
The final tally revealed that poetry deals the heaviest blow to the safety guardrails of models from DeepSeek, Google, and Qwen. Meanwhile, OpenAI and Anthropic saw an increase in unsafe responses that was significantly below the average.
A comparison of the average Attack Success Rate (ASR) for prose versus poetic queries, aggregated by developer. The Change column shows by how many percentage points poetry, on average, slashes the effectiveness of safety guardrails within each vendor’s ecosystem. Source
The main takeaway from this study is that “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — in the sense that AI technology still hides plenty of mysteries. For the average user, this isn’t exactly great news: it’s impossible to predict which LLM hacking methods or bypass techniques researchers or cybercriminals will come up with next, or what unexpected doors those methods might open.
Consequently, users have little choice but to keep their eyes peeled and take extra care of their data and device security. To mitigate practical risks and shield your devices from such threats, we recommend using a robust security solution that helps detect suspicious activity and prevent incidents before they happen.
To help you stay alert, check out our materials on AI-related privacy risks and security threats:
We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.
Copyright owners increasingly claim more draconian copyright law and policy will fight back against big tech companies. In reality, copyright gives the most powerful companies even more control over creators and competitors. Today’s copyright policy concentrates power among a handful of corporate gatekeepers—at everyone else’s expense. We need a system that supports grassroots innovation and emerging creators by lowering barriers to entry—ultimately offering all of us a wider variety of choices.
Pro-monopoly regulation through copyright won’t provide any meaningful economic support for vulnerable artists and creators. Because of the imbalance in bargaining power between creators and publishing gatekeepers, trying to help creators by giving them new rights under copyright law is like trying to help a bullied kid by giving them more lunch money for the bully to take.
Entertainment companies’ historical practices bear out this concern. For example, in the late-2000’s to mid-2010’s, music publishers and recording companies struck multimillion-dollar direct licensing deals with music streaming companies and video sharing platforms. Google reportedly paid more than $400 million to a single music label, and Spotify gave the major record labels a combined 18 percent ownership interest in its now- $100 billion company. Yet music labels and publishers frequently fail to share these payments with artists, and artists rarely benefit from these equity arrangements. There’s no reason to think that these same companies would treat their artists more fairly now.
In the AI era, copyright may seem like a good way to prevent big tech from profiting from AI at individual creators’ expense—it’s not. In fact, the opposite is true. Developing a large language model requires developers to train the model on millions of works. Requiring developers to license enough AI training data to build a large language model would limit competition to all but the largest corporations—those that either have their own trove of training data or can afford to strike a deal with one that does. This would result in all the usual harms of limited competition, like higher costs, worse service, and heightened security risks. New, beneficial AI tools that allow people to express themselves or access information.
For giant tech companies that can afford to pay, pricey licensing deals offer a way to lock in their dominant positions in the generative AI market by creating prohibitive barriers to entry.
Legacy gatekeepers have already used copyright to stifle access to information and the creation of new tools for understanding it. Consider, for example, Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, the first of many copyright lawsuits over the use of works train AI. ROSS Intelligence was a legal research startup that built an AI-based tool to compete with ubiquitous legal research platforms like Lexis and Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw. ROSS trained its tool using “West headnotes” that Thomson Reuters adds to the legal decisions it publishes, paraphrasing the individual legal conclusions (what lawyers call “holdings”) that the headnotes identified. The tool didn’t output any of the headnotes, but Thomson Reuters sued ROSS anyways. A federal appeals court is still considering the key copyright issues in the case—which EFF weighed in on last year. EFF hopes that the appeals court will reject this overbroad interpretation of copyright law. But in the meantime, the case has already forced the startup out of business, eliminating a would-be competitor that might have helped increase access to the law.
Requiring developers to license AI training materials benefits tech monopolists as well. For giant tech companies that can afford to pay, pricey licensing deals offer a way to lock in their dominant positions in the generative AI market by creating prohibitive barriers to entry. The cost of licensing enough works to train an LLM would be prohibitively expensive for most would-be competitors.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “anti-circumvention” provision is another case in point. Congress ostensibly passed the DMCA to discourage would-be infringers from defeating Digital Rights Management (DRM) and other access controls and copy restrictions on creative works.
Section 1201 has been used to block competition and innovation in everything from printer cartridges to garage door openers
In practice, it’s done little to deter infringement—after all, large-scale infringement already invites massive legal penalties. Instead, Section 1201 has been used to block competition and innovation in everything from printer cartridges to garage door openers, videogame console accessories, and computer maintenance services. It’s been used to threaten hobbyists who wanted to make their devices and games work better. And the problem only gets worse as software shows up in more and more places, from phones to cars to refrigerators to farm equipment. If that software is locked up behind DRM, interoperating with it so you can offer add-on services may require circumvention. As a result, manufacturers get complete control over their products, long after they are purchased, and can even shut down secondary markets (as Lexmark did for printer ink, and Microsoft tried to do for Xbox memory cards.)
Giving rights holders a veto on new competition and innovation hurts consumers. Instead, we need balanced copyright policy that rewards consumers without impeding competition.
Login
