5 ms·
Also, "when encryption of electronic communications data" would have to be interpreted in a very twisted way to apply to DRM of IP content (be it software or ar
by lloeki 9y ago
Also, "when encryption of electronic communications data" would have to be interpreted in a very twisted way to apply to DRM of IP content (be it software or art)
- derefr 9y agoIt would need to be twisted indeed to apply to DRMed games, sure. On the other hand, I could see streaming video from Netflix being "encrypted communication", where the "recipient" is your HDCP television, and breaking the trusted media path between the two would count as "reverse engineering or monitoring" the signal. If, of course, these lines were meant to apply to something other than the Member States themselves. :)
- Freak_NL 9y agoIt would depend on the legal definition of recipient used. If I — as a natural person — am the recipient, than decrypting that stream would not be unlawful. Even if my TV is the 'recipient', I, as its legal owner, am probably still in the clear.
- cyphar 9y agoConsidering the level of mental gymnastics necessary to produce the current model of "intellectual property", there is definitely room for concern that you may end up with software which you do not own that is considered the recipient. Think a proprietary streaming service client which you pay to have a license to use. Combine it with enough layers of HDCP and shitty illegal-to-break crypto and they'll have managed to plug your analog holes.
- derefr 9y agoActually, yeah, given that TVs are clearly private property. How about the set-top box you're renting from your cable company, though?
- Spearchucker 9y agoMy guess is value. A set top box being the recipient is of no value to me, it, or anyone else. If I (a person in meatspace) cannot see whatever was encrypted, what's the point, even? Why would I pay money for it?