And another Ubuntu convert!
derek at pointerstop.ca
Mon Jan 26 19:30:43 UTC 2009
Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 22:53 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Yes, but as Gilles says, that isn't law,
>> and in any case it doesn't make the
>> same restrictions as DMCA.
> As far as deCSS goes it does, if I am not stupid (though IANAL). Chapter
> III, Article 6:
> 1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the
> circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person
> concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to
> know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.
Who can argue with that? (OK, any lawyer, could, but I _think_ it says
there should be laws to prevent me stealing somebody else's property). I
don't think it says I should only be able to play a DVD on a specifically
authorized device - which the DMCA does.
> 2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the
> manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale
> or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or
> components or the provision of services which:
> (a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of
> circumvention of, or
> (b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other
> than to circumvent, or
And putting deCSS into my movie player so that I can play a DRM'd DVD that I
own, doesn't seem contrary to that either. I particularly like the "
limited commercially significant purpose or use" - a lawyer would make
mincemeat of that. Is it "commercial (purpose or use)" or (commercial
purpose) or use"? If the former, then it tends to delegitimize any non-
commercial software, whatever its purpose, and if the latter it tends to
decriminalize deCSS provided you don't actually copy anything.
More information about the ubuntu-users