4 ms·
> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this
by marwis 3y ago
> (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;
Wouldn't it be correct to say that if there exist a technology to circumvent a technological measure of access control then that measure is in fact ineffective?
- c0m 3y agoIf you have a bad lock on your door, is it still criminal if I bypass it with lockpicking tools and distribute them, telling everyone how to exploit your specific lock? FWIW I disagree with anti-circumvention laws as they exist in the DMCA, but it seems like a straightforward passage to interpret. The devil’s advocate argument that I can come up with for it is that it allows developers incapable of adding sufficient protection to have their work have protection of the law, rather than code. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Corley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v...
- marwis 3y agoI believe it's different because the law about trespassing doesn't say anything about effective locks or other methods of denying access. AFAIK it would be illegal to enter even if there was no door at all. I don't think the linked case tried to challenge anti-circumvention provision using the reasoning I've given but it would be interesting to know if anybody else tried it :)
- iudqnolq 3y agoNo. Unfortunately a major issue in US copyright law is that the bar for effectively controlling access is incredibly low. One particularly infuriating case involved a box that blocked the low-frequency part of a signal. That's all it took to interfere with a cable company's billing systems. Appeals court finds that was an effective measure. https://cite.case.law/f3d/536/101/ https://cite.case.law/f3d/536/101/