Re: Why TPM+Parallel Distribution is non-free
MJ Ray writes:
> Terry Hancock <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.