[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25



Consider the implications of the 2600 case to this. While YOU may or may 
not be doing something illegal when you modify the source code, providing 
source code or telling others how to do it would be illegal....




Noah silva <nsilva@atari-source.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/22/01 09:18 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25


Yes, but it simply says the "software" has to contain the protection
measures.  The source coming with the software may have the practical
effect of making modification easier, but I don't see how it has a legal
effect of any kind.  if the kernel comes with the protection and I edit
the source and disable it, then I am the one doing the illegal thing, not
the distributor of the kernel, no?  this is a much better position to be
in because the "enforcer" who wants to keep this protection has to go
after every user instead of some convenient company.

 -- noah silva 

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, steve bryan wrote:

> At 4:55 pm -0400 10/19/01, Noah silva wrote:
> >You can always include the "security" features in the "free" (and I am
> >assuming Open Source) software.  Just make them conditional defines to
> >it's easy to recompile it without even having to look at the code ;)
> 
> I believe that is behind the theory of why open source software would 
> be rendered illegal by this act. If the source code is available it 
> would be relatively simple to bypass any snake oil security measure 
> intended to eviscerate fair use in order to promote unlimited 
> copyright. These measures are, of necessity snake oil because they 
> attempt to allegedly prevent access while at the same time provide 
> access.
> -- 
>