On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Raul Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent > > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using. > > I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but > if a marker pen can be classed as a circumvention device, it seems > possible that they might be technological measures sometimes, if > they are doors or walls designed to prevent such copying.
I don't have a clue what you're saying, here. > > Same thing goes for the atlantic ocean -- the atlantic ocean can prevent > > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using. > > > > Notice a trend here? None of this has anything to do with preventing > > someone who has a copy from making unauthorized copies. > > That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly > "obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies > you make or distribute" as well as meet the definition of a > technological measure. Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. > > > The other things you mention are how technological measures are > > > sometimes used, but that's not how it's phrased in law or in the FDL. > > > > Do you seriously believe the GFDL prohibits the atlantic ocean? > > It's very hard to argue that the atlantic ocean was designed to prevent > unauthorised copying, which is part of the legislative definition here. That was my point: An argument which would treat the atlantic ocean as DRM must be wrong. -- Raul