At 8:57 PM -0800 1/20/02, Karsten M. Self wrote: >... >Note that my reading the language of 1201 doesn't requre that the work >being accessed be copyrighted (and in the case of Afghanistan, there is >a real question of copyright status), circumvention itself is >sufficient, regardless of status of the specific work accessed: > > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A): > No person shall circumvent a technological measure that > effectively controls access to a work protected under > this title. > >...if the measure controls access to _a_ work protected under 17 USC, >than _any_ circumvention is illegal, whether or not that circumvention >affects a protected work? > >I don't see the statuatory exceptions as covering the case of the WSJ. >
Circumvention is defined in 17 USC 1201 (a) (3): "As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; ... I'd read that as implying that the law is talking about a copyrighted work; otherwise if someone encrypts text in the public domain, no one would be allowed to decrypt it. But an aggressive prosecutor might adopt your interpretation. It's a very poorly written law with great potential for abuse. Arnold Reinhold Who is not a lawyer and is not offering legal advice --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
