Date:         Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:35:22 -0700
Reply-To:     kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: OT:  Free Dmitry Sklyarov / DMCA
In-Reply-To:  <5.1.0.14.2.20010801194918.024ef160@pop3.powernet.co.uk>; from
              John.W@MEDISCIENCE.CO.UK on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 10:33:49PM +0100
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";

on Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 10:33:49PM +0100, John Whittington (John.W@MEDISCIENCE.CO.UK) wrote:
> At 08:58 01/08/01 -0700, Jeff Voeller wrote (in part):
> 
> >By mentioning DVD, Karsten has raised a situation where sometimes the
> >"protection" actually renders the product worthless.  As I understand it,
> >the person who cracked the DVD encryption scheme did not do it in order to
> >make illegal copies, but rather because there was _no_ way at the time to
> >play a DVD on a Linux system.  In other words, a Linux user with a
> >legitimately purchased DVD drive and a legitimately purchased DVD was
> >forbidden to actually access the DVD content because it was "protected"
> >into uselessness.
> 
> Hmmmm.  I'm not sure that I have all that much sympathy with the plight of
> someone who purchases 'data' in a format that is incompatible with his/her
> equipment!  In this particular case, it is the 'encryption scheme' that
> creates the incompatibility - but that makes it no more sensible for the
> person to purchase data in an incompatible format than if the
> incompatibility were a physical one.

Would you buy a book that you could only read in an XYZ Co. certified
bookreader?  Why should you need to fit the bookreader to the book?
You've *bought* the book.

Additional points:  you're assuming that the consumer is aware of the
limitations of the medium or work purchased.  In the case of the eBook,
and a CD copy prevention technolgy from MacroVision, this hasn't been
the case.  Restrictions of the medium are only made known after the
purchase is completed.  Turns out that this is against the law...in
Russia.  So, who has jurisdiction in the Russian case:  the US, which
prohibits anti-circumvention technology, or Russia, which prohibits
unannounced circumvention?

CD technolgy reference:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/20766.html

> > My point: There are indeed times when it's completely legitimate to
> > defeat a copy protection scheme and do so without in any way
> > stealing data or denying a copyright holder legitimate proceeds.
> 
> Yes, I accept that there are times when the reason for wanting to
> 'defeat a copy protection scheme' are totally innocent, and would harm
> no-one.  However, as I've said before, the whole concept of 'copy
> protection' goes out of the window the moment there is free legal
> availability of a means of circumnavigating that protection.  

Not true, and missing several important points.  I'm responding to this
point in my more considered reply to your prior post.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?          There is no K5 cabal
    http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/           http://www.kuro5hin.org
Free Dmitry!! Boycott Adobe!! Repeal the DMCA!!  http://www.freesklyarov.org


[application/pgp-signature]