3 ms·

Apple did actually screw the pooch on this one. Typically, it's criminally illegal to circumvent DRM in the US (and 99% of the rest of the world). However, the

Apple did actually screw the pooch on this one. Typically, it's criminally illegal to circumvent DRM in the US (and 99% of the rest of the world). However, there are also certain exemptions that have been granted, within the US only (other countries are not so lucky). The right to repair is one such exemption[1]. If Apple had separated security from first-party repair enforcement, then anyone found even attempting to break the T2 chip might have been up for jail time. However, the right to repair is a valid defense. Of course, making circumvention criminally illegal doesn't make the chip itself any more technically secure; say against criminals. It is a pretty solid deterrent though. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/

Daniel_sk 6y ago
I bet breaking DRM is legal in most parts of the world. Good luck to any company trying to sue an individual for breaking DRM. "Article 6.4 of the European Directive mandates Member States to ensure users can benefit from the copyright exceptions. This means that countries must have some kind of process in place to allow citizens to make copies of DRMed works." (https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20191113-01.en.html https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20191113-01.en.html) Unfortunately in US the corporate has lobbied so hard to make EULA, DRM and others enforceable by law.
- Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
  This is the first time I've heard about this, and quite interesting to me as Article 12 of WIPO Copyright Treaty specifically requires signatories make circumvention of DRM protection devices illegal. This would seemingly be in contradiction to that. However, seems as the US, who were the driving behind this treaty, also provide exceptions/exemptions, I can see how the EU were able to justify any such contradiction. That said, from the EU directive: > Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned. There are certain exceptions, in articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, which can be read at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL.... So there's not a blanket right to circumvent DRM; and nothing is spelt out that clearly. Additionally, not a lawyer or in Government, however, in my lay-mans reading of this directive, I'm seeing a lot of usages of the word "may". I'm (possibly incorrectly) interpreting this as meaning a Member State can introduce these copyright exceptions, not that it's mandated as the FSFE article states.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    Yes but well at least a view (not many) years ago braking DRM for research purpose was fully legal in Germany as well as publishing the findings, through publishing tools which brake DRM was fully illegal. At least that is what I remember.
dathinab 6y ago
> the US (and 99% of the rest of the world) No, that is a pretty US specific mess up. At least in the EU braking DRM for thinks like research purpose is fully legal as far as I know. It's a bit more complicated if it's a but distributing tools which can brake DRM. It's no as complicated if it's about publishing a (somewhat) scientific document explaining the general concept about how to brake it.
parliament32 6y ago
The US is effectively the only place in the world where circumventing DRM is actually illegal and prosecute-able, every other country has various exemptions and bypasses that remove its teeth. Here in Canada for example, you can happily argue "I was doing it to learn how it worked" and fall under the education exemption, unless you're stripping DRM and actively selling the content or something similar. You should have a skim through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Laws
chungus_khan 6y ago
> It is a pretty solid deterrent though. It absolutely is not. It is completely unenforceable, especially in the case of criminal circumvention, and serves no realistic or practical purpose. Anyone who commits said "crime" in any meaningfully damaging sense and is caught will already be committing the actual crime of infringement, and so tacking circumvention on is largely pointless. It only serves to deter legitimate public research. Also, the T2 isn't in any way classifiable as "technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works". This law is meant to apply to copyright-protection DRM and has nothing to do with software security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to computer systems. Circumventing the protection of those measures is only legal to do on systems on which you are authorized to do so, and is otherwise illegal under separate law.

Daniel_sk 6y ago

I bet breaking DRM is legal in most parts of the world. Good luck to any company trying to sue an individual for breaking DRM. "Article 6.4 of the European Directive mandates Member States to ensure users can benefit from the copyright exceptions. This means that countries must have some kind of process in place to allow citizens to make copies of DRMed works." (https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20191113-01.en.html https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20191113-01.en.html) Unfortunately in US the corporate has lobbied so hard to make EULA, DRM and others enforceable by law.

Benjamin_Dobell 6y ago
This is the first time I've heard about this, and quite interesting to me as Article 12 of WIPO Copyright Treaty specifically requires signatories make circumvention of DRM protection devices illegal. This would seemingly be in contradiction to that. However, seems as the US, who were the driving behind this treaty, also provide exceptions/exemptions, I can see how the EU were able to justify any such contradiction. That said, from the EU directive: > Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned. There are certain exceptions, in articles 1, 2, 3 and 4, which can be read at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL.... So there's not a blanket right to circumvent DRM; and nothing is spelt out that clearly. Additionally, not a lawyer or in Government, however, in my lay-mans reading of this directive, I'm seeing a lot of usages of the word "may". I'm (possibly incorrectly) interpreting this as meaning a Member State can introduce these copyright exceptions, not that it's mandated as the FSFE article states.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Yes but well at least a view (not many) years ago braking DRM for research purpose was fully legal in Germany as well as publishing the findings, through publishing tools which brake DRM was fully illegal. At least that is what I remember.

dathinab 6y ago

> the US (and 99% of the rest of the world) No, that is a pretty US specific mess up. At least in the EU braking DRM for thinks like research purpose is fully legal as far as I know. It's a bit more complicated if it's a but distributing tools which can brake DRM. It's no as complicated if it's about publishing a (somewhat) scientific document explaining the general concept about how to brake it.

parliament32 6y ago

The US is effectively the only place in the world where circumventing DRM is actually illegal and prosecute-able, every other country has various exemptions and bypasses that remove its teeth. Here in Canada for example, you can happily argue "I was doing it to learn how it worked" and fall under the education exemption, unless you're stripping DRM and actively selling the content or something similar. You should have a skim through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Laws

chungus_khan 6y ago

> It is a pretty solid deterrent though. It absolutely is not. It is completely unenforceable, especially in the case of criminal circumvention, and serves no realistic or practical purpose. Anyone who commits said "crime" in any meaningfully damaging sense and is caught will already be committing the actual crime of infringement, and so tacking circumvention on is largely pointless. It only serves to deter legitimate public research. Also, the T2 isn't in any way classifiable as "technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works". This law is meant to apply to copyright-protection DRM and has nothing to do with software security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to computer systems. Circumventing the protection of those measures is only legal to do on systems on which you are authorized to do so, and is otherwise illegal under separate law.