![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:51 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says: > > > > > > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively > > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition conta > ined > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used > > for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO: > > -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent > > it, it is obviously not "effective". > > As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13 If even ROT-13 is "effective access control", anything which is titles "Access Control" applies. > qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned. AFAICS several folks got my point .... Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-28 12:42 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||