On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 06:46:27PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Had the DCMA been in effect in the 1950s, the Xerox Corporation and its execs and engineers probably would have faced charges for producing a "circumvention device" for enabling copyright violators. What, really, is the difference between a Xerox machine and something that allows copies of electronic text?
(Both have alternate uses besides pirating. Backups, for example.)
I realize Tim is making a general point, and I agree with his overall analysis (it makes sense, how could I not?). But I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and argue that the DMCA does not make any distribution/sale of a circumvention device verboten. It makes these three things illegal: `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof. That's broad, and unduly broad, but not as broad as it could be. -Declan