Re: OT: mass installation on XBox
On Thursday 03 October 2002 03:46 pm, Jamin W.Collins wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:02:25 -0700 ben <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
do you have a url for this? i'm curious as to what the remainder of 3.
consists of, as in acts that do precisely what? if the manipulations that
martin's objective requires don't actually facilitate that which the
"technological measures" are designed to prevent, it could be argued that
those measures haven't been circumvented; at which point, unless the
purchaser is obliged to agree that the box cannot be used for any other
computational purpose than to play m$ sanctioned applications, the project
couldn't be deemed an illegal use.