[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] A good use of circumvention
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A good use of circumvention
- From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 13:23:55 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
That's what I understood as well
"According to a Birmingham-based Islamic news agency,
which obtained the film of bin Laden, it was passed to
one of its journalists by a Pakistani intelligence official
who said the "new" segment had been filmed in March.
The tape arrived in Britain on an encrypted CD-Rom and
was decoded by the agency last week."
"Agency" refers to the news agency. Hence, my somewhat tongue-in-cheek,
somewhat sarcastic response. Technically, the works on that CDROM are the
intellectual property of Osama Bin Laden. Technically the CDROM was
encrypted to provide access control. Technically they circumvented the
access control. Technically, they are not a governement agency. That's a
better technical case against them under the DMCA than the MPAA had
against Corley. Mickey points out ANOTHER flaw in the DMCA - news services
are not included in the exemptions only the government.
mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/21/2002 12:43 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A good use of circumvention
I understood the article to say that a news reporting agency made use of
circumvention.
Mickey
Michael Columbus wrote:
>No offense but it seems your arguing for the sake of arguing. Government
>officials and law enforcement are exempt from recourse for 1201(a) or (b)
>circumventions. So someone can make that arguement but unless the
opposing
>lawyer has already been disbarred he'd better not lose.
>
>1201(e) Law enforcement, intelligence, and other government activities.
>This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative,
>protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer,
>agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision
>of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United
>States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of
this
>subsection, the term "information security" means activities carried out
in
>order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government
computer,
>computer system, or computer network.
>
>
>Michael Columbus
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>[mailto:owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
>microlenz@earthlink.net
>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 12:00 AM
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] A good use of circumvention
>
>
>Quite right....afterall the santity of intellectual property must be
>preserved
>now that Osama can invoke the DMCA to claim circumvention of his
>intellectual
>property...the sad thing is that I can imagine somebody actually making
that
>argument.
>
>On 20 May 2002 at 23:02, mickey wrote:
>
>Date sent: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:02:05 -0400
>From: mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: [dvd-discuss] A good use of circumvention
>Send reply to: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>
>> From "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53157,00.html", about a new
>>bin Laden video:
>>
>>"He said the film was on a CD-ROM, which the reporter brought to Britain
>>10 days ago. The CD-ROM contained a password, which the agency managed
>>to unlock last week."
>>
>>It kinda stinks that we couldn't do that in the US.
>>
>>mickeym
>>
>>
>
>
>