Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixescensored by the DMCA

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
> 
> I wish you were right.  Sadly, it's not this simple.  Alax Cox is not
> of the wall.
> 
> I've spent some time talking to lawyers about what the DMCA really
> prohibits, and they tell me that the law is unclear enough that it is
> entirely plausible that it could be read to prohibit not only black boxes
> but also software, even paper documents, even only a description of a flaw
> or how to exploit it.  (Check out the "technology [...] or part thereof"
> phraseology, for instance.)

Technology in particular is troublesome.   What is a "technology?" Is it
a device... no, that is seperately listed, same for component, and
part.  Earlier in our parsing exercise of the DMCA a point was made by
the lawyers in the group that when two terms exist in a list of things
in the law, they cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning.  So
technology is some non-device, non-component, non-part -- sounds like an
inkblot into which "other" including documentation could be lumped.  For
example if I post a simple
set of "push this button, then that button" sequence that unlocks a
cable box to display all channels (I have no idea if this is possible)
-- that could be considered a technology (ology == writing or study)
that would circumvent.

> 
> The risk is substantial, and I was advised to take it very seriously.

I've raise this to the level of our corporate counsel -- frankly they're
not sure what to think about an engineer with the level of knowledge
about a law I've acquired over the last year or so.

.002