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

RE: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection measure ?



Another nasty consequence of the current use of the word "intellectual 
property" as with personal property, nobody want to lose it, lose title to it, 
or just abandon it and you can't just give personal property to everybody or 
you'd be bankrumpt. SO...obviously nobody would ever want to just GIVE it away 
and so we must make certain that people can lose their intellectual property 
without thinking about it...or even if they do....

On 23 Apr 2002 at 16:37, Richard Hartman wrote:

> Wait a sec ... the font creation tools automatically set the
> "protected" flag & the user can't turn it off for fonts that
> he, himself, has created?  And _this_ is the reason the
> "circumvention device" was created?
> 
> Sounds like the font creation tool distributer is at fault
> for encouraging the development of circumvention devices ...
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Ballowe [mailto:hangman@steelballs.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:34 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] How many bits is a technical protection
> > measure?
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting read. The lawyer cites 1201(a) and quotes 1201(a)(1) which
> > seems to lack any foundation as there is no evidence that twm ever 
> > circumvented a protection measure that was controling access to a work
> > as defined in title 17. The only evidence from his site about Embed is
> > that he has used it to open up fonts that he had created, certainly an
> > allowable action.
> > 
> > They might have more of a case on 1201(a)(2), but that would 
> > require that
> > the primary purpose of his program is circumvention -- nowhere is that
> > indicated anywhere on his site. His intended purpose, as far 
> > as I can tell,
> > is to open up fonts that he has created. Since creation of 
> > fonts by individuals
> > isn't exactly an activity that few engage in, there is 
> > commercially significant
> > uses of the program outside of its uses for circumvention. (At least I
> > assume that would qualify).
> > 
> > Maybe he should report the lawyer to lerchey as someone 
> > harrassing him online.
> > ;)
> > 
> > -charlie
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 06:48:04PM -0400, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Scott A Crosby wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So, a lounge-rat here wrote a program that would reset 
> > those flags to
> > > > allow him to mark his fonts as embeddable.. He has recieved a DMCA
> > > > takedown letter (which is on its way to 
> > ChillingEffects.org) from a font
> > > > house ordering him to remove the program.
> > > 
> > > Now the dialog is up at:
> > > 
> > >     http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~twm/embed/dmca.html
> > > 
> > > (For me, its blank, so I had to 'view source' to read it.)
> > > 
> > > Wow.. That makes interesting reading. His program has been in
> > > existance for over 5 *years*... Now, they're claiming, retractively,
> > > that its illegal under the DMCA.
> > > 
> > > Very very interesting.
> > > 
> > > Chilling effects!  If this actually goes past C&D letters, 
> > it would be an
> > > even stronger exlempar of why no one can ever write any program that
> > > might, at some time (even years) in the future be used for 
> > 'circumvention
> > > of a copyright protection measure'... Which probably 
> > includes almost all
> > > programs ever written.
> > > 
> > > Scott
> > > 
> >