list-fsf-eu-discussion@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber) writes:
| Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and | effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective | technological measures that are used by authors in connection
[...]
Now, maybe I've just been in Amsterdam too long and the fumes have got to me, but surely if the copy protections measures are circumventable they are, by definition, ineffective technological measures?
Or is this some lawyer-speak that I'm misreading?
Article 12 seems to be a pussycat, as long as their definition of "electronic rights management information" means the content of that information, not the actual encoding of it.
On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 06:41:31PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Now, maybe I've just been in Amsterdam too long and the fumes have got to me, but surely if the copy protections measures are circumventable they are, by definition, ineffective technological measures?
You could probably say the same about locks - given people can pick them, they're not a means of keeping everyone out of your house. The lock not being a sufficiently able means of access control does not consitute a defence to burglary (at least, not last time I checked :)
My problem with copyright control isn't actually the fact that it is there - the fact the people want to exercise fair control over works is okay by me (we use copyright to enfore the GPL, for example). My problem is where the control impinges on my lawful right to use something I've paid for, for example. In that way, I don't really care how effective or not the device is - the fact that it is there is the problem.
Cheers,
Alex.
My problem with copyright control isn't actually the fact that it is there - the fact the people want to exercise fair control over works is okay by me (we use copyright to enfore the GPL, for example). My problem is where the control impinges on my lawful right to use something I've paid for, for example.
Agreed. Does everybody know http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html , I suppose?
/alessandro
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com schrieb/wrote:
You could probably say the same about locks - given people can pick them, they're not a means of keeping everyone out of your house. The lock not being a sufficiently able means of access control does not consitute a defence to burglary (at least, not last time I checked :)
Note that picking locks is not illegal. Nor is posessiong or trafficking tools that can be used for it. Burglary is.
For copy protection, breaking them is already illegal.
Claus