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

[Noah silva <nsilva(at)atari-source.com>]

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.
> -- 
>