Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> writes:
> A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is
> not "imperfect". If I post my root password to this list, it is not
> an "imperfect but still effective" security mechanism; it is useless
> and defeated.
But, as you note below, that's not the case.
> (It seems to me that the real goal of this law is so that once a
> security mechanism is defeated, and is no longer effective, the real
> "security mechanism" becomes the law itself: by pretending that the
> obsolete mechanism is still "effective", the deterrent becomes the
> threat of prosecution, instead of actual security.)
Precisely. IIRC, "effective security mechanism" was defined in terms of
controlling access "in the normal course of operation" -- which the
copyright holder is going to have a great deal of flexibility to define.
If you want to be charitable, you might say that "effective" here is
being used in the sense of "effectively, it's a security mechanism".
But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being
used in a way that requires the mechanism to be robust.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03