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

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

On 7 Jul 2003 at 19:58, juergen + barbara wrote:

From:           	"juergen + barbara" <jmhoraze@compuserve.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Gedanken Experiment -Unix and Norton
Date sent:      	Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:58:10 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I venture they have stored the Virus-signatures in a compact form, not just a,
> say, simple list in a text file.

Doubtless but it's still just facts and information that has been organized 
into some arrangment of bytes. The arrangement cannot be copyrighted and not 
patented as well, although these days who knows.
> Also, identifying and then listing a Virus-signature and the remedy may be
> protected too.  

Why? That's just facts as well. A partial remedy is no remedy and neither is 
too much of a remedy (Destroy the harddisk!) so there is also no originality in 
the remedy.

>It not just the identification but also the way to remove a
> Virus which is stored in the NAV and MacAfee definition file (look for certain
> associated files, cleanup the Registry in a certain way, etc.).  (To give them
> also a competitive edge.)

Again, the remedy must undo what the virus has done. The only originality here 
is in the writing of the virus itself-rather ironic that it might be copyright 

> On the other hand, looking at the copyright notices of Symantec Norton
> SystemWorks 2003 it only mentions (and only there, not at the component
> level Norton AntiVirus) "This computer program is protected by copyright law and
> international treaties..." I does not say anything about configuration or
> datafiles.
> *jm*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu
> [mailto:majordomo-owner@eon.law.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> microlenz@earthlink.net
> Sent: Sonntag, 06. Juli 2003 12:36
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: 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.
> >
> >