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

[russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <KAwob.2012$Wy2.26384@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Andy McFadden  <fadden@fadden.com> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>"The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls"
>> 
>> Hmm, I was wrong.  Devices which circumvent copy controls are illegal
>> to manufacture or traffic in, but the act of circumvention of copy
>> controls isn't illegal under the DMCA.
>
>By my reading, the act of circumvention is illegal, by section
>1201(a)(1)(A) (see below).  There is an exception in 1201(f) for reverse
>engineering that might apply, but that'd be a bit of a stretch.

Circumventing ACCESS controls.  There's no equivalent paragraph in
1201(b) for circumventing copy controls. 

>The Librarian goes on to state "proponents of exemptions have demonstrated
>that the prohibition on circumventing access controls has had a substantial
>adverse effect on the ability of people to make noninfringing uses of
>four particular classes of copyrighted works."  So circumventing "copy"
>controls is legal but circumventing "access" controls isn't?  

Yep.

>The only mention of "copy controls" in the law relates to Macrovision's analog
>video stuff.

I believe the librarian is using "copy controls" to refer to the
1201(b) restriction refering to "a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in
a work or a portion thereof"

>"Devices" includes software, e.g. DeCSS.  So you'd need to crack the disks
>without writing anything that could be identified as a device.  I used to
>use a handful of tools (e.g. a boot0 loader that helped with boot tracing),
>the "manufacture" of which could land me in jail.  If I keep the tools to
>myself, and only use them for reverse engineering, I might be okay.

If you could do it by only writing tools which had some primary
purpose other than circumvention, you'd be OK.  This is rather
unlikely, though.

>SunnComm recently started (and then stopped) pursuing legal action against
>a Princeton researcher who pointed out that holding down the "shift" key
>would defeat SunnComm's latest audio CD copy protection.  Whether or not
>they'd win is irrelevant... big companies have money to waste on lawsuits,
>individuals usually don't.

Well, that guy would have had no problem with Princeton backing him
up, but us little people with no university behind us would have a problem.

>    [if you have a copy of DeCSS, you're trafficking in illegal devices]

Have trafficked.  Mere possession isn't prohibited, but you couldn't have
gotten it without either manufacturing it or trafficking in it.  For
Apple II tools, you're OK provided you got them before the DMCAs
effective date.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.