Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel security fixes censored by the DMCA

["Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>]

"Roy Murphy" writes:

: 'Twas brillig when John Zulaf scrobe:
: >So there we have it:
: >
: >(a) a TPM that controls access to a work with the authorization of the
: >copyright holder (the DMCA
: >(b) information about a crack which circumvents this TPM (typically
: >gaining root access)
: >(c) dissemination of that "device... or component thereof" -- i.e. any
: >demo code or documentation sufficient to reproduce that crack
: >
: >QED -- the next time Alan visits the US, the FBI could visit him if he
: >does (c).
: 
: This was nothing more than a publicity stunt by Alan Cox.
: 
: He censored a kernel changelog.  The changelog is a description of the purpose
: of the patches that he accepted an incorporated.  A *description* of the existing
: security hole which was patched *is*not* a device.  No reasonable person could
: confuse it with a device.  I won't even go into 1201(a)(2) A/B/C analysis.
: 
: For your reference:
: (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise
: traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof,

You are not dealing with reasonable people.  You can't reasonably call
software a device either.  But that is what the MPAA calls it in the
2600 DVD lawsuit.  And anyway the operative term is probably ``technology'',
which, if it includes anything, may well include software and explanations
of how to do things.

It is not a publicity stunt; it was publicizing a very real risk.  The 
Sklyarov case shows just how real the risk is.


--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
        NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists