Like I said, I'm not defending the DMCA. I was merely correcting the fellow who didn't know the exemption (of sorts) existed. -Declan On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:18:38AM -0700, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
Declan,
It's pretty bad.
The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advance the state of the art in general or in the development of products. The means to negate the exemption look like they're deeply embedded in the code.
(2)(A) is certainly easy to meet - woohoo. (2)(B) is not too bad unless someone decides that your intent goes beyond pure research (3)(A) makes it easier to call the intent impure, especially if the dissemination is general rather than confined to the guild (3)(B) is another thin end of the wedge to get a guild system up and running (3)(C) is not too bad unless it is determined that partial disclosure might indicate a non-research intent (4)(A) is redundant (4)(B) looks like it can be used to severely restrict dissemination to anyone not closely associated with the researcher
All in all it's pretty shitty because it looks ( to a non-lawyer ) like it defines the exemptions in such a way as to make it easy to prosectute a person who decides to follow their curiosity and distributes widely. What the fuck is a "legitimate course of study?" Whatever congress and your local prosecutor say it is, right? The carpetbaggers are in control.
Rapid, broad, anonymous publishing is the only way to fight it.
Re: the Starbucks/MS Wallet access points - big surprise. Who here expected the ideal gateway for anonymity to be handed to us on a silver plater?
Wilde was right and life is looking very much like a Gibson novel.
Mike
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:53:02PM -0400, David Jablon wrote:
With these great new laws, there is no longer any risk of being legally criticised for using even the most glaringly flawed cryptography -- just use it for Copy Protection, and TADA! Negative criticism magically disappears. Almost by definition.
Flaws can only be exposed by those who won't show their work, or from anonymous sources, who nobody will trust without confirmation [...] [...] We seem to be entering the twilight zone -- the end of an exciting, but brief era -- of public cryptography.
The DMCA may be bad, but it's not *that* bad. It contains a broad prohibition against circumvention ("No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access") and then has a bunch of exceptions.
One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of sorts. See below.
-Declan
PS: Some background on Sklyarov case: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=sklyarov
PPS: Note you only get the exemption if you make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention." Gotta love Congress, eh?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--
`(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and
`(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.
`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--
`(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;
`(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;
`(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and
`(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--
`(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;
`(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and
`(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided.
`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to--
`(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and
`(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).