3 ms·

You are strawmanning the law whereas a judge interpreting it will steelman it.

• wtallis 3y ago
  Exactly. A judge will not interpret the law as only outlawing what is impossible. And the law does provide a definition: > a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
  • saghm 3y ago
    This is just continuing to move the question into new language that's not any less obtuse; if the game comes on a cartridge and I need to copy it onto a computer to put in an emulator, and the game's loading screen tells me not to, how is this not "a process" that doesn't have "the authority of the copyright owner" even if it's not encrypted in any way? Even more preposterously, if the game tells me I can only play on Tuesdays, and when it boots up it gives me a prompt saying "press A to continue if it's Tuesday, but if it's not, shut down the console and wait until Tuesday", and I ignore that and press A on Wednesday, how am I not performing a process (pressing A) without the authority of the copyright owner (who only gave me permission on Tuesdays)?
• saghm 3y ago
  Sure, I don't actually think that my arguments would actually hold up in court, but that's kind of my point; the law is written very poorly, which means that the _actual_ legal effect is not nearly as clear to a lay person as the original comment I was responding to was arguing. I alluded to this in my second paragraph in my comment, but I guess I could have been more explicit.