From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 202de658b8dcb913a905c30ec7d577c4fb6cd04cbc79fd23f6e9d46fe2ff8c04
Message ID: <199510301634.LAA10488@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: <199510300240.SAA07345@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-30 18:16:34 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 02:16:34 +0800
From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 02:16:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: S. 1284 To Amend (C) Act
In-Reply-To: <199510300240.SAA07345@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us>
Message-ID: <199510301634.LAA10488@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Tom Bell writes:
> [S. 1284 would]: 1) make[] transmission of copies a
> type of publication (and thus potentially a means of infringing a
> copyright); and 2) prohibit[] the importation, manufacture, or
> distribution of any device the primary purpose of which is to
> deactivate any technological protections that prevent or inhibit the
> violation of copyrights.
M. F. (Pat) Sprague writes:
# What occurs to me is that PGP could be considered a "device" to obscure
# contents of data therby preventing the determination of a copyright
# violation.
Encryption (as opposed to decryption) doesn't defeat any mechanisms that
stop someone from violating a copyright. It can make the _detection_
harder, but not the _commission_. So I don't think that should be a concern.
(As usual, IANAL.)
Building upon Tom Bell's and cjs' observations, I suppose it could be argued
that encryption can be employed as a means of copyright protection. Hence
some decryption programs might be outlawed as devices intended to
"deactivate" copyright-protecting technology.
I can't think of any c'punks projects so far that try to pierce security
schemes meant to shield materials from copyright violations. Since many
cypherpunks aren't inclined to preserve copyrights, they lack a motive for
ensuring the integrity of copyright protection methods. Cypherpunks launch
attempts to crack security systems in order ultimately to improve them, not
for the sake of breaking them. I expect the alt.2600 crowd would be more
directly affected by S. 1284.
As a matter of principle, though, I don't think we should be amicable to a
bill like S. 1284. It's a bit disturbing to see that it's cosponsored by
Sens. Patrick Leahy & Russ Feingold, who led the Senate opposition to the
Indecent Act. I find it hard to imagine that the bill will encounter any
significant legislative obstacles.
-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
Return to October 1995
Return to “msprague@owens.ridgecrest.ca.us (M. F. (Pat) Sprague)”