Subject: Re: When is Circumvention ethically and legally viable?
From: Jean Camp <jean_camp@harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:52:57 -0500

At 1:40 PM -0800 2/18/03, Jack Park wrote:
>At 12:54 PM 2/18/2003, Chip Mefford wrote:
>
>>  >particular classes of works as to which users are, or are
>>>likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make
>>>noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention of access
>>>controls
>>
>><snippage>
>>What in the world is this supposed to mean?
>
>An opinion:
>
>There exists a class of individuals, said class having need to 
>circumvent access controls in a non-infringing manner on some 
>product(s), and said class being adversely affected by regulations 
>under discussion.
>
>Jack
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
>Addison-Wesley. Jack Park, Editor. Sam Hunting, Technical Editor
>
>Build smarter kids globally to reduce the need for smarter bombs.

It means a whole bunch of the same kind of people get screwed in a 
systematic way based on their sameness, rather than just noting that 
DMCA spews for everyone in every possible direction.

Sorry I copied some lawyer text.

I would suppose that the class of individuals here are open source 
businesses and programmers that seek to interoperate, including 
opening files created by closed systems and interacting with closed 
security protocols.

The first could be prevented by DRM as so well illustrated by Lucky Green.

The second reminds me of the Microsft/Kerberos/Slashdot case whereby 
looking at the material needed to write interoperable programs 
required agreeing never to speak about interoperating.

Supporting comments from businesses may be taken more seriously than 
supporting comments from consumers.

-Jean


--