lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: GPL V3 and Linux
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:24 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
    >
    > > With the exception that I *can* circumvent the protection on PDFs *if*
    > > I'm legally allowed to copy the copyrighted work (with or without the
    > > owner's permission - this is one reason for a legal copy. But there are
    > > others which cannot be inhibited by the copyright holder - which is
    > > usually not the artist).
    >
    > Actually, in the US, it is in fact illegal to bypass a protection scheme
    > *even if the content is something you have legal rights to*.

    Well, the so-called "land of the free". SCNR .....

    > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html
    >
    > 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 contained
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    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".
    -) If I (and no one else) cannot circumvent it, the laws/court decisions
    as such is basically pointless because it doesn't limit or hinder
    anything.
    And we have no definition (in the laws) hereover whatever "effective"
    should mean and hoe *I* can determine (which a sufficient large chance
    of getting it right) if a given protection scheme must be considered
    "effective".

    Don't get me wrong, I understand how it is meant what such rules should
    achieve an, but I request from lawyers (as such) that they write
    laws/court decisions down in an unambigous way (for a non-law person -
    remember that laws affect *all* people so every law and court decision
    should IMHO readable and understandable by the average citizen).

    And if they can't write it down unambigously, I actually question if we
    want to accept laws/court decisions about rules and concepts which
    cannot be even written down in a simple enough and clear way.

    [..]
    > Got that? You have to apply for special permission to bypass to get data that
    > you have rights to use....

    Yes, because that is the primary goal of all of the laws in that area in
    last years: To effectively take away legal rights from you that you
    actually legally have (or better: had).

    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: 2006-01-27 10:56    [W:0.024 / U:1.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site