3 ms·

Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something. A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work fir

Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something. A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work firewall? Is there a history behind this? >>> (4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: (i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and (ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

mbreese 16y ago
When I read that and I think Sony BMG's rootkit or SecuROM. Or maybe just examining the security implications of a game install without letting the manufacturer know about it by bypassing a phone-home feature. Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-... They specifically mention this clause: It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.