MJ Ray writes: > Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A system which applies encryption, but is not enforced under law is NOT >> a "TPM" in the legal sense of the word, and is therefore not "being used >> to restrict" a work (legally). > > Adding the adverb "legally" does not change the meaning of words on > its own. Are there any cases showing any technological measure used to > restrict anyone as being not enforced under law now?
I'm not sure how applicable this is, but when I first read Terry Hancock's mail, Lexmark vs SCC occurred to me as a vaguely similar case. I say "vaguely" because there are notable differences in the function of the DRM bits -- differences that, if anything, would have helped Lexmark. Lexmark's attempt to use the DMCA to enforce a platform monopoly failed. However, the DRM/TPM are still there -- it is simply legal for SCC to digitally mark their products in a way that makes them compatible with Lexmark's. Even if the exact case is not apposite to CC3.0, the lesson that DRM or TPM may exist without posing a legal problem is relevant. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
