On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
>
> > With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
> > I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
> > owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
> > others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
> > usually not the artist).
>
> Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
> *even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.
Well, the so-called "land of the free". SCNR .....
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
>
> 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says:
>
> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
^^^^^^^^^^
> controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used
for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO:
-) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent
it, it is obviously not "effective".
-) If I (and no one else) cannot circumvent it, the laws/court decisions
as such is basically pointless because it doesn't limit or hinder
anything.
And we have no definition (in the laws) hereover whatever "effective"
should mean and hoe *I* can determine (which a sufficient large chance
of getting it right) if a given protection scheme must be considered
"effective".
Don't get me wrong, I understand how it is meant what such rules should
achieve an, but I request from lawyers (as such) that they write
laws/court decisions down in an unambigous way (for a non-law person -
remember that laws affect *all* people so every law and court decision
should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).
And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if we
want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts which
cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.
[..]
> Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
> you have rights to use....
Yes, because that is the primary goal of all of the laws in that area in
last years: To effectively take away legal rights from you that you
actually legally have (or better: had).
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
