3 ms·

"Copyright circumvention device" is really a broad and dangerous definition. Pretty much every electronics lab contains at least one of these devices in the for

"Copyright circumvention device" is really a broad and dangerous definition. Pretty much every electronics lab contains at least one of these devices in the form of a logic analyzer, and network sniffing tools can be downloaded from every software repository.

sjy 6y ago
It is not a definition, it’s shorthand for something that is precisely defined so as to exclude the examples you have given. > No person shall … traffic in any … device … that (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person … for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
- phendrenad2 6y ago
  IANAL but it seems like there's a fine line between being seen as a "circumvention device" (which is used mainly for piracy of copyrighted content, and perhaps even sold and advertised for this purpose) and being seen as something more like a "rooting tool" (root your device! not responsible for piracy! wink wink).
  - sjy 6y ago
    Yes, iOS jailbreaking is a good example of this. Clearly it involves circumventing a technological measure that prevents some kinds of copyright infringement, but that’s not its sole purpose. In the US it now seems pretty clear that it’s legal, but which side of the line it falls on in most other jurisdictions remains uncertain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Legality
    - djeiasbsbo 6y ago
      Ten years ago, the Library of Congress which operates the Copyright Office declared jailbreaking to be "fair use". This was then accepted by the EFF, which set a precedent but only in the specific act of jailbreaking Apple devices it seems. But I think that even when it comes to Apple devices, the battle is far from over. Just this year, Apple had a lawsuit against the company Corellium, which specialices in iOS virtualization. This company is also working on Project Sandcastle, which lets one run Android on Apple devices.
ATsch 6y ago
It is overly broad, but not because of this. AFAIK there is precedent for arguing cryptographic keys and even code implementing drm algorithms are such a "device". This is extra great because as soon as you slap any encryption or algorithm that could feasibly be called "drm" into your code, it becomes illegal to reverse engineer. This is being used by lots of companies, but most memorably for me by John Deere to make repairing their tractors a jailable offense.
burnte 6y ago
Unfortunately it doesn't need to be well defined as circumventing copyright "protections" is illegal under the DMCA.

sjy 6y ago

It is not a definition, it’s shorthand for something that is precisely defined so as to exclude the examples you have given. > No person shall … traffic in any … device … that (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person … for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

phendrenad2 6y ago
IANAL but it seems like there's a fine line between being seen as a "circumvention device" (which is used mainly for piracy of copyrighted content, and perhaps even sold and advertised for this purpose) and being seen as something more like a "rooting tool" (root your device! not responsible for piracy! wink wink).
- sjy 6y ago
  Yes, iOS jailbreaking is a good example of this. Clearly it involves circumventing a technological measure that prevents some kinds of copyright infringement, but that’s not its sole purpose. In the US it now seems pretty clear that it’s legal, but which side of the line it falls on in most other jurisdictions remains uncertain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#Legality
  - djeiasbsbo 6y ago
    Ten years ago, the Library of Congress which operates the Copyright Office declared jailbreaking to be "fair use". This was then accepted by the EFF, which set a precedent but only in the specific act of jailbreaking Apple devices it seems. But I think that even when it comes to Apple devices, the battle is far from over. Just this year, Apple had a lawsuit against the company Corellium, which specialices in iOS virtualization. This company is also working on Project Sandcastle, which lets one run Android on Apple devices.

ATsch 6y ago

It is overly broad, but not because of this. AFAIK there is precedent for arguing cryptographic keys and even code implementing drm algorithms are such a "device". This is extra great because as soon as you slap any encryption or algorithm that could feasibly be called "drm" into your code, it becomes illegal to reverse engineer. This is being used by lots of companies, but most memorably for me by John Deere to make repairing their tractors a jailable offense.

burnte 6y ago

Unfortunately it doesn't need to be well defined as circumventing copyright "protections" is illegal under the DMCA.