4 ms·

I don't think that's the case. The games are copyrighted. The keys only need to constitute an effective anti-circumvention scheme (any technological measure tha

I don't think that's the case. The games are copyrighted. The keys only need to constitute an effective anti-circumvention scheme (any technological measure that “effectively controls access” to a work) to be illegal to code for.

withinboredom 3y ago
If the keys are that readily available ... I don't think it is "effective" by any definition of the word.
- monocasa 3y ago
  'Effectively' has a different meaning than y'all are reading. It's not effectively as in 'an effective, well constructed lock', but instead as in 'for all intents and purposes'. The law doesn't say 'it's illegal to break a lock until it's been broken'.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    A door without a lock or sign saying "keep out" is not "effective for all intents and purposes." Further, you can buy a switch and never agree to any EULA or other contracts.
    - monocasa 3y ago
      > A door without a lock or sign saying "keep out" is not "effective for all intents and purposes." But picking a crappy lock on a door you're not supposed to open is still a crime, regardless of how crappy the lock is. > Further, you can buy a switch and never agree to any EULA or other contracts. 1201 doesn't require you to sign any conracts or agree to any EULAs. It's treated more like trespass.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  The DMCA definition >>...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.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    So, a website fits that definition. Sounds like browsers should be sued.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      >So, a website fits that definition What DRM is a browser bypassing? As if you control some that is being bypassed by a browser, you're free to sue.
      - daurnimator 3y ago
        Have you seen user agent strings? Every browser pretends to be all the browsers before it to get around restrictions on who can see/render content.
        ab5tract 3y ago
        Your point is as nonsensical as the user agent strings themselves. It's not copy protection. It may change the structure and content of the page that is sent but that is not copy protection.
        daurnimator 3y ago
        > It's not copy protection. It may change the structure and content of the page that is sent but that is not copy protection. It is though! Often news websites use the user agent to detect e.g. the google crawler, and allow google to index the contents of news articles; but then throw up a paywall when anyone with a normal browser shows up. I recall some news websites tried to threaten people making browser extensions with the DMCA/CFAA as they considered it working around their copy protection to illegally gain access to their content.
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        >recall some news websites tried to threaten people making browser extensions with the DMCA/CFAA as they considered it working around their copy protection to illegally gain access to their content. Source? I spent two minutes looking and failed to find anything like that, hardly an exhaustive search though. Hard to argue a user agent could be DRM though, considering it's a string I the user send to the website.

withinboredom 3y ago

If the keys are that readily available ... I don't think it is "effective" by any definition of the word.

monocasa 3y ago
'Effectively' has a different meaning than y'all are reading. It's not effectively as in 'an effective, well constructed lock', but instead as in 'for all intents and purposes'. The law doesn't say 'it's illegal to break a lock until it's been broken'.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  A door without a lock or sign saying "keep out" is not "effective for all intents and purposes." Further, you can buy a switch and never agree to any EULA or other contracts.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > A door without a lock or sign saying "keep out" is not "effective for all intents and purposes." But picking a crappy lock on a door you're not supposed to open is still a crime, regardless of how crappy the lock is. > Further, you can buy a switch and never agree to any EULA or other contracts. 1201 doesn't require you to sign any conracts or agree to any EULAs. It's treated more like trespass.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
The DMCA definition >>...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.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  So, a website fits that definition. Sounds like browsers should be sued.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    >So, a website fits that definition What DRM is a browser bypassing? As if you control some that is being bypassed by a browser, you're free to sue.
    - daurnimator 3y ago
      Have you seen user agent strings? Every browser pretends to be all the browsers before it to get around restrictions on who can see/render content.
      - ab5tract 3y ago
        Your point is as nonsensical as the user agent strings themselves. It's not copy protection. It may change the structure and content of the page that is sent but that is not copy protection.
        daurnimator 3y ago
        > It's not copy protection. It may change the structure and content of the page that is sent but that is not copy protection. It is though! Often news websites use the user agent to detect e.g. the google crawler, and allow google to index the contents of news articles; but then throw up a paywall when anyone with a normal browser shows up. I recall some news websites tried to threaten people making browser extensions with the DMCA/CFAA as they considered it working around their copy protection to illegally gain access to their content.
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        >recall some news websites tried to threaten people making browser extensions with the DMCA/CFAA as they considered it working around their copy protection to illegally gain access to their content. Source? I spent two minutes looking and failed to find anything like that, hardly an exhaustive search though. Hard to argue a user agent could be DRM though, considering it's a string I the user send to the website.