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

RE: [dvd-discuss] Re: TurboTax for free?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > John Zulauf wrote: 
> > > (3) The TPM protecting TurboTax on the disk is clearly 
> pre-first-sale,
> > 
> > I disagree on "clearly".  Yes, there was no sale, but
> > there _was_ a transfer of property as a gift.  That is
> > the crux of the issue.
> There is transfer of property on the full functioning "install disk". 
> TurboTax won't function without (a) key not currently in your 
> possession

The DVD won't function witout the key that was
issued to the player manufacturer . . .

> or (b) modifying the contents (creation of a derivative work) 
> to remove
> requirement (a).  

Likewise (aka: DeCSS).

>As the key is only transferred upon a sales event,

As the key is only transferred to a licensed DVD
player manufacturer . . .

> action (b), the modification of the disk to remove 

modification of the disk?  nay, say instead "the creation 
of a device to circumvent the protection" (a la DeCSS) . . .

> requirement (a), is a
> pre-first-sale circumvention. 

> Q.E.D.

You've just proved that Jon should've been found guilty.

> P.S. I reread the MPAA quote.  How can a "technical measure" protect
> against "infringing copies".  Since whether a copy is 
> infringing or not
> is a matter for a four part legal test (and with the unavailability of
> AI based courtrooms (courtROMS?), all a "technical measure" can do is
> prevent all copies, and since preventing all copies (post 
> first sale) is
> not "a right of a copyright holder" thus the "technical 
> measure" cannot
> qualify for 1201 protection.

This has long been the root argument against
technical enforcement of legal restrictions.

> P.P.S.  The is the logical opposite the TurboTax, where the key system
> is access control (the key denotes your PC users as 
> "authorized persons"
> and the passing of the key is a sales event.  

But if I create a circumvention device, I don't need their key.
If I can brute-force the key, I don't need their key.
If I use someone else's key, I don't need their key.

All of the above are _exactly_ as applied to CSS.

I'm still looking for the distinction.

You are focussing on the passing of the key, I am 
dealing with the passing of the software itself (as
a gift).  If you want to focus on the key you have
to do the same when discussing the DVD vulnerability.

>The key testing software
> *can* discriminate (by validating the key) valid and invalid access
> (without need of a courtroom).

Isn't that what CSS did?  Discriminate valid keys?

> P.P.P.S. If you get your key and quickly do your taxes, do you have a
> first sale right to transfer that key to another person, if not, why
> not?

-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!