on Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 08:17:41AM -0800, Eric Rescorla ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > on Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:10:27PM -0800, Eric Rescorla ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > However, if he can price di
Peace.
Notes:
1. a transparent mask for Sony (Japan), EMI (England), Warner, BMG
(Germany), Universal (France), the so-called American recording
industry, to hide behind.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:55 AM -0500, Trei, Peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Karsten M. Self[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> >
> > Note that my reading the language of 1201 doesn't requre that the work
> > being accessed be copyrighted (and in the case of Afg
ent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title.
...if the measure controls access to _a_ work protected under 17 USC,
than _any_ circumvention is illegal, whether or not that circumvention
affects a protected work?
I don't see the sta
oring systems such as Carnivore or Echelon, and forwarded to
private industry, as has been alleged by the French against the US, may
not fall under this exemption, and could be actionable.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What par
ublic privacy in the face of
such systems. I'm curious as to systems which might use various forms
of one-time keys or tokens to validate transactions, there was some
discussion of this 1-2 years back, with a system proposed by AmEx IIRC,
but little followup.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[
