[linux-elitists] Legitimate crypto circumvention examples

Deirdre Saoirse Moen deirdre@deirdre.net
Thu Aug 2 17:41:33 PDT 2001


Karsten wrote:

>    There is obviously no real point in people expending time, effort
>    and money in developing 'copy protection technology' if means of
>    circumnavigating it are going to be freely, and legally, available.

That said, it's been legal for years and yet it's still been developed and
companies that specialize in it have been profitable. Look at
Macrovision's 10-Q (MVSN iirc).  For me, I never want to think that a
company I'm sending money to is more concerned about their copyright
protection IP than the product I'm buying.

For example, about 20% of the traffic on the Machine Knitter's list is
about people who've bought DAK (Design-A-Knit) and have had problems
related to losing one or more "lives" due to copy protection. Ugh.

>    The 'circumvention tool' exists only to circumvent the author's
>    attempt to protect material from being copied.  If that protection
>    is valid in law, then, as I keep saying, it makes little sense to me
>    for means of circumventing it being legal.

Our laws were made, in part, to conform to treaties. It'd be interesting
to know if we've broken any treaties we're signatory to with the DMCA,
wouldn't it?

That said, archival backups *are* legal.

-- 
_Deirdre     Stash-o-Matic: http://weirdre.com      http://deirdre.net
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
                                                         - Douglas Adams





More information about the linux-elitists mailing list