[6324] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Gilmore)
Tue Jan 4 16:25:26 2000
Message-Id: <200001042019.MAA02213@toad.com>
To: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Cc: ray@unipay.nl, bram@gawth.com, shamrock@cypherpunks.to,
cypherpunks@algebra.com, cryptography@c2.net, gnu@toad.com
In-reply-to: <200001041857.KAA29179@servo.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:19:58 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
> >No, October 28, 2000 is when the act of circumventing an effective
> >technological measure becomes a violation (with exceptions for fair
>
> But if it was an "effective technological measure", it couldn't have
> been circumvented. And by circumventing CSS, wasn't it shown to not be
> an effective technological measure??
No, read the law. Their definition of "effective" is that it purports
to protect intellectual property. Welcome to Wonderland, where words
mean what *Congress* says they mean. Off with our heads!
> ``(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access
> to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its
> operation, requires the application of information, or a process
> or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to
> gain access to the work.
John
