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

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <20031029135053.28166.00000312@mb-m27.aol.com>,
>Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article <apple22-DCD232.22544428102003@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>>>Greg Buchner  <apple22@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>€  Computer programs or video games that use obsolete formats or 
>>>>hardware 
>>>>
>>>><Should include anything Apple II related...>
>>>
>>>Yes, but the exemption only applies to the act of circumvention in
>>>order to gain access to the work, which is damn-near unreachable
>>>anyway.  It does not apply to trafficking in circumvention devices
>>>(e.g. Copy II Plus) nor does it apply to circumvention in order to
>>>copy the work, nor does it apply to any actual copyright violation.
>>
>>But it does seem to open the door for people to defeat the copy
>>protection on obsolete works to archive them for future use--
>
>As long as they don't make or acquire any tools to do so.  And don't
>make any copies when doing it.  Only the act of circumvention to
>obtain access is permitted.  Circumventing to make a copy (e.g. to
>archive the work) is not permitted.  
>
>>a very critical requirement for the preservation of digital works which
>would
>>otherwise be locked into failing or obsolete media.
>
>There's still no way to do it without breaking a few laws.

Matthew, are you a lawyer?

My non-lawyer understanding is that an individual or organization
can now do anything to circumvent copy protection that it desires,
as long as it does not "traffic" in such tools, meaning offering them
for sale.

If they acquire tools or technologies for circumvention through
"research" or non-commercial channels, then they are fine.
If they acquired them commercially before the DMCA, then that's
fine, too (no _ex post facto_ laws).

And archiving copyrighted material has _always_ been (and 
continues to be) legal--the only legal obstacle was circumvention,
which is now exempted for obsolete platforms--therefore using this
circumvention to make archival copies is a perfectly legal exercise
of fair use (at least until a court finds otherwise).

OK, if you are a lawyer, you can now tell me where I'm wrong.
(And if you're not, then my opinion is as good as yours.  ;-)
-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/