On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:51 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> 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
If even ROT-13 is "effective access control", anything which is titles
"Access Control" applies.
> qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned.
AFAICS several folks got my point ....
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]
