[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixescensored by the DMCA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: [DMCA_discuss] Linux kernel securityfixescensored by the DMCA
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 20:16:49 -0600
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> I wish you were right. Sadly, it's not this simple. Alax Cox is not
> of the wall.
> I've spent some time talking to lawyers about what the DMCA really
> prohibits, and they tell me that the law is unclear enough that it is
> entirely plausible that it could be read to prohibit not only black boxes
> but also software, even paper documents, even only a description of a flaw
> or how to exploit it. (Check out the "technology [...] or part thereof"
> phraseology, for instance.)
Technology in particular is troublesome. What is a "technology?" Is it
a device... no, that is seperately listed, same for component, and
part. Earlier in our parsing exercise of the DMCA a point was made by
the lawyers in the group that when two terms exist in a list of things
in the law, they cannot be interpreted to have the same meaning. So
technology is some non-device, non-component, non-part -- sounds like an
inkblot into which "other" including documentation could be lumped. For
example if I post a simple
set of "push this button, then that button" sequence that unlocks a
cable box to display all channels (I have no idea if this is possible)
-- that could be considered a technology (ology == writing or study)
that would circumvent.
> The risk is substantial, and I was advised to take it very seriously.
I've raise this to the level of our corporate counsel -- frankly they're
not sure what to think about an engineer with the level of knowledge
about a law I've acquired over the last year or so.