"Engineer for Haloid Corp. arrested for producing circumvention device"

[Declan McCullagh]

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