[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] close to the proverbial bone
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] close to the proverbial bone
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 16:38:12 -0700
- References: <E06ADA0073926048AD304115DD8AB6BC9D6805@mail.onetouch.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Richard Hartman wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Zulauf [mailto:email@example.com]
> > but the evil of the DMCA is that the circumvention tools are illegal
> > whether or not there is any evidence of copyright
> > infringment.
> Ok ... how about a hypothetical running in a different direction ...
> I write a virus. The main portion of it is encrypted (except
> for the self-decryptor). As it operates it decrypts it's payload,
> executes & deletes all unencrypted portions again.
> So ... would the anti-virus makers be liable under the DMCA
> for bypassing my access protection mechanism in order to create
> a utility to clean up after my virus?
With the Berne Convention -- certainly... cracking the encryption
surrounding a virus would certainly be circumventing the access controls
of "without the authority of a copyright owner" -- this is of course the
flip side of the DMCA error -- it doesn't define any limits on what a
copyright holder can authorize or disauthorize.
Requiring registration for copyright protection would yield the humorous
answer "only if they filed for a copyright" (followed immediately by a
spot on "Americas Dumbest Criminals")