Re: Comment on DMCA, Security, and Vuln Reporting]

["Tim McKenzie" <webmaster () crazy-horse net>]

> * When I was at Wired News, we joined an amicus brief in the 2600 case
that
> said journalists should have the right to link to controversial material
> such as DeCSS.exe:
> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/linking-amicus.012601.html

I may not be a lawyer.. however, I fail to see how a news agency should have
any more leniency than a private individual or security organization.
Especially in the case of a security related website, the end goal is the
same: To notify people en mass about an issue. If I were a lawyer and I  had
to defend a case like the 2600 one, I would definitely use this as an
argument. However, there is even a more pressing point.

Should companies be sued for providing blank tapes, CDR's, DVDR's etc? They
provide the medium for spreading copyrighted material. I fail to see how
this is greatly different than the case of 2600 having a copy of the utility
on their website. Just because I own a blank tape, doesn't mean I'm going to
use it to copy all my rented movies. Likewise, having a copy of a rather
interesting program to analyze for research doesn't make me a pirate of
copyrighted DVDs nor does it mean I encourage the behavior. I believe, as
others have mentioned, that the problem lies in the people who make the
final decisions in cases like this and their lack of experience in the IT
industry. I believe that we are entitled to a jury of our "peers," which
could be described as equals. If I ever got caught up in a similar case, I
for one would have my lawyer ensure that my case is tried by a court that
understands how information technology works. Might be a lost cause, but I
would call it a cause worth fighting for.

-TJM