On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > 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 conta ined > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 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". As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13 qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned.
Attachment:
pgpabkSYNaWtw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- References:
- RE: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: "David Schwartz" <[email protected]>
- RE: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: Ian Kester-Haney <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: [email protected]
- Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- From: Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
- RE: GPL V3 and Linux
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] debugfs: hard link count wrong
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm3
- Previous by thread: Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- Next by thread: Re: GPL V3 and Linux
- Index(es):
 |