4 ms·
The language sounds too slippery to me. Implementors won't be sued, they say, but who decides who is an implementor? What is an implementation and what is an un
by jzwinck 10y ago
The language sounds too slippery to me. Implementors won't be sued, they say, but who decides who is an implementor? What is an implementation and what is an undesirable hack? Who is a security researcher and who is persona non grata?
If I make a time shifting system, to use the article's example, but the standard says the protocol must be played live, am I an implementor of the standard, or a nefarious hacker?
What if I create software which lets people abroad watch content from PBS Nova (currently blocked by geo-IP)?
I might even screw up and implement something usable for "bad things" by accident. Am I then an infringer, if I neither properly implemented the standard nor conducted research on it?
- tptacek 10y agoThe covenant they're proposing doesn't appear to distinguish between implementors, security researchers, and others. It just forbids, altogether, civil suits for circumventing or stripping copy protection (17 USC 1202-1203). However, this only protects you from suits over circumvention. You are presumably still eminently liable for your PBS Nova scenario, for instance.
- mjevans 10y agoI don't think anyone can (and hope that no one is ever allowed to) legally standardize presentation. Some of the examples cited in the open letter include changes to presentation (and time shifting) to suit end user requests and accessibility needs. One could also argue that 'fast forwarding' is a form of selective time-shifting for personal use. The analog equivalent to this would be getting up to use the restroom or make a snack during an over the air television broadcast; or even switching to another channel during that set of ads.