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

RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton

On 5 Jul 2003 at 21:03, juergen + barbara wrote:

From:           	"juergen + barbara" <jmhoraze@compuserve.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
Date sent:      	Sat, 5 Jul 2003 21:03:07 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> well do you use your own format of the AV definition file or are you using
> MacAfee's or Norton's?  For the later they could get you -- DMCA seems to
> prohibit reverse-engineering...

Well that's the question. What is copyrightable in their NAV definition file? 
The signature of the virus? That's a fact. The definitions file is no more than 
a listing of virus and signatures for them-a listing of facts this is no more 
copyrightable than the telephone book. So how can their file be copyrighted?  
If it is not copyrighted how can the DMCA be involved. 

OK now consider if I wrote a translation program of the definitions to an open 
file format. Does that program violate the DMCA? It should not because the 
material is not copyrighted and so circumvention is not an issue...or should 
be. The exemptions the LOC recommends to congress might be interesting. 

NOw I will admit given that, using encryption on the file is an ideal way for 
Norton or Macaffee to protect their facts from being able to be used by others 
but also allowing them to claim DMCA protection on something that is not 
copyrighted should also not be allowed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
> [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> microlenz@earthlink.net
> Sent: Freitag, 04. Juli 2003 10:57
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiement -Unix and Norton
> In view of the recent discussions on the w32.klem.h consider this...
> Suppose someone writes a virus scanner for Unix that uses Norton Anti-Virus
> definition files rather than their code. Is that copyright infringement? Theft
> of trade secret? Or DMCA violation? Now I'd bet money that Symantec would haul
> anybody who did that into court and try arguing all three.