On 29 May 2001, at 9:32, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> At 04:29 PM 5/29/01 +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> > >> An equally interesting question is whether it is illegal for a consumer to
> > >> copy already ripped DV material a friend may have. Since the person doing
> > >> the copying did not circumvent the copy protection, not perhaps their
> > >> friend, nor even know the original source and whether it was protected,
> > >> they should not be liable.
> > >
> > >Wouldn't this be an area where traditional, boring copyright law would
> > apply?
> >
> >Of course. But the question is still interesting when making the copy falls
> >under fair use. Does DMCA protection somehow propagate to the decrypted
> >data?
>
> I don't see why it would. This really isn't a question that we need to
> speculate about; you should just read the text of the DMCA. Again, it seems
> to me that "traditional, boring" pre-DMCA copyright law would apply.
In fact, the DMCA has nothing to do with making copies, that is,
the act of. The wording of the law actually goes basically the way
of the entertainment industry lobbyists who bought it, and makes
decryption - or generally, circumvention - completely separate from
any act of infringing copyright. This means that all the law does is
allow industry to establish cartel-like control over technology. The
DMCA is "copyright law" only by virtue of having been included in
chapter 17 of the USS code. So, there is no "propagation" of any
kind between one way of breaking the law and the other; they deal
with entirely different acts.
sparkane
>
> -Declan
