Re: OT: mass installation on XBox
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:02:25 -0700 ben <benfoley@rcn.com> wrote:
> surely, m(acro)$ would have to show that martin's manipulation of the
> xbox caused them real financial loss in order to prove a violation of
> patents or copyrights.
That's the catch though. From what I've seen of the DMCA and it's
European counter part, neither of them are concerned with patent or
copyright. They are about circumventing restrictions, plain and simple.
If there is a restriction and you bypass it, you're in violation. Is this
stupid? Absolutely, but it also appears to be how both items read.
> even in order to prove that software
> copy-protection had been circumvented, one should have to provide
> evidence that copies had not only been made but also used in a fashion
> contrary to the conditions of the license
I'm not sure they do. From Chapter III Article 6 (brief snippets, see
article for complete version):
| 1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the
| circumvention of any effective technological measures,
|
|[what do they consider a technological measure?]
|
|3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological
|measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal
|course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts
|
|[So, what are the members supposed to do?]
|
|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
|(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the
|purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective
|technological measures.
and in Article 7:
|1. Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection against any
|person knowingly performing without authority any of the following
|acts:
|(a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management
|information;
Looks pretty clear to me. The mere sale of circumvention equipment is
supposed to be against the law.
--
Jamin W. Collins
Reply to: