Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932448AbWA0JyP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:54:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932452AbWA0JyP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:54:15 -0500 Received: from ns.firmix.at ([62.141.48.66]:48004 "EHLO ns.firmix.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932448AbWA0JyO (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:54:14 -0500 Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux From: Bernd Petrovitsch To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Ian Kester-Haney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200601270310.k0R3AIrf014656@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <43D65211.20006@wolfmountaingroup.com> <441e43c90601241721o8b4a9e5rd3a237f70aa46dbb@mail.gmail.com> <1138182144.4800.12.camel@tara.firmix.at> <200601270310.k0R3AIrf014656@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Firmix Software GmbH Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1138355647.12605.21.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2920 Lines: 64 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/