[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day1..Addenda
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day1..Addenda
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:50:57 -0600
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3EC3EA07.11337.5A7971@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
> The panel struggled with copy vs access protection. It is not clear that they
> understand that access is a necessary but not sufficient condition for copying.
it depends on what you mean by "access". Sans DeCSS one can still copy
the contents of a DVD, but not access it's content. We've beat to death
the maxim "encryption ISN'T copy protection" -- the Xerox vs. the typed
page of secret-decoder-ring text being the canonical example.
Access needs to be differentiated between clear text and cipher text as
copy of cipher text depend on ability to read and write the cipher text
In this first case no "access" to the clear text of the work is needed.
Thus access is neither
necessary nor sufficient.
clear text copy of cipher text depends on ability to (1) read cipher
text, (2)decrypt, and (3) write clear text.
In the latter case access is necessary but not sufficient , but is
access (1), (2), or (1+2)? Note that (3) is specifically under attack
as well (5C, et. al.), though circumvent a restriction on (3) wouldn't
be illegal under DMCA "access" restrictions, but could be under "copy