Re: It's legal to crack Apple II copy protection

["Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net>]

"Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Pivob.38141$AU.30372@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> ttednf_PYPwN9TyiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net">news:ttednf_PYPwN9TyiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net...
> ..snip..
> >
> > Here's where you get to a VERY fine point of the law.  There are two
> > parts of the DMCA which forbid circumvention.  One forbids
> > circumvention to obtain access.  The other forbids circumvention to
> > exercise some exclusive right of the copyright holder (which would
> > include copying).  The exemption covers the former but not the
> > latter.  So while making the archival copy is legal, and
> > circumventing the protection to obtain access is legal, circumventing
> > the protection to make the archival copy is not legal.
>
> Matthew:
>
> I am trying to reconcile your comments with those made by the Librarian of
> Congress in reference to the recently issued exceptions:
>
> "The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls"

You have taken this clear out of context. Yes, they do forbid the act
of circumvention merely to gain access to copy controlled software.

> See:  http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/librarian_statement_01.html

The entire statement is simply extending a ruling from the past that does
allow the circumvention of copy controls on certain types of media which
would prevent libraries and the blind from accessing material that is now
in effect obsolete. Matthew is correct.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/03