On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:41:08 +1000, Conrad Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><IANAL>
>It appears to be quite like [my impression, via slashdot, of] the DMCA
> -- not that that answers John's question. For example:
>
>Objective (a)(ii) is to "ensure the efficient operation of relevant
>industries in the online environment by ... providing a practical
>enforcement regime for copyright owners"; but Objective (c) is to
>"provide reasonable access and certainty for end users of copyrighted
>material online". _Without_ the 'online' bit, it would seem that
>choosing to use free software for the viewing of DVDs would be
>reasonable.
>
>The definitions of "circumvention device" and "technological
>protection measure" are interesting. Weak "scrambling" would be covered
>by law as such a protection measure (I take it it isn't now), and "any
>device (including a computer program)" having limited or no use "other
>than circumvention, or facilitating the circumvention, of" it would be
>illegal -- which sounds very much like what we hear of the DMCA.
[snip]
></IANAL>
The piece I found interesting (and more vague than the rest) was:
116A
(4) This section does not apply in relation to the making or importing of a
circumvention device:
(a) for use only for a permitted purpose relating to a work or other
subject-matter that is not readily available in a form that is not protected
by a technological protection measure...
Now, IANAL, but it seems fairly clear to me that you aren't making a
"circumvention device" if you are just making a DVD viewer. That makes
LiViD somewhat ok, but it may be more difficult to argue that DeCSS is ok.
Section 15B defines a "technological protection measure" as
means a device or product, or a component incorporated into a process, that
is designed, in the ordinary course of its operation, to prevent or inhibit
the infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter by either or
both of the following means:
(a) by ensuring that access to the work or other subject matter is
available solely by use of an access code or process (including decryption,
unscrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter)
with the authority of the owner or licensee of the copyright;
(b) through a copy control mechanism.
I think it is fairly certain CSS will fall squarely under definition (a)
even though it is really a distribution control mechanism and not a
copyright protection mechanism. Of course, designing a mechanism to get
around the region coding probably falls easily under the exclusion listed in
116A above because if you buy the work from the USA then you have the right
to watch it (as far as I can tell).
It all gets very hard and unfortunately the movie industry has more money
for lawyers than the rest of us.
John Wiltshire
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
