IP: Criminalizing crypto criticism

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: cryptography () wasabisystems com, cypherpunks () cyberpass net, gnu () toad com
> Subject: Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:34:00 -0700
> From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
> Sender: owner-cryptography () wasabisystems com
>
> > Much of the hysteria regarding the DMCA's supposed ability to quash free
> > speech by cryptographic researchers is being whipped up by opponents
> > to the DMCA who are misrepresenting the DMCA in a calculated fashion in
> > order to promote opposition.
>
> The anonymous poster's legal analysis was not particularly novel.  It
> states that the "exemptions" in the DMCA actually cover the things
> that they were supposedly intended to cover.  That would be a
> refreshing change if it were true, but the law is full of weasel words
> and exemptions to the exemptions.  Only accredited researchers, not
> cypherpunks, can do research, for example.  And you're only exempt if
> you tell the company first, so they know to sue you before you do the
> research, rather than after the results are leaking out to the public.
>
> Neither my opinion nor the poster's opinion controls, though.  What
> matters is what the judges will say, and how expensive it is to
> ordinary researchers to find out.  In the 2600 case, what the judge
> said is that even if Jon Johansen might have been able to reverse-
> engineer DVD players under an exemption (an issue that he didn't
> decide), 2600 Magazine was unable, under the statute, to publish even
> *A LINK* to Jon's results.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/