Tim Starling wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
If "trafficking" were as simple as "making the number show up on someone's computer screen", they'd get a lot more mileage out of suing Google than us. And there -are- exceptions built into the law for academic use of the number. This isn't the same as the 2600 case, nor MPAA vs. Corel. Neither of those institutions are primarily academic and educational in nature, nor are they nonprofit. They've actually been pretty hesitant to sue academic users, because they -know- that's not one they'll probably win.
Delirium didn't ask "will they sue us?", he asked "is it illegal?" The answer is to the latter question is almost certainly yes. Which academic exception do you think is relevant exactly?
Edward Felten was threatened with a lawsuit under the DMCA for publishing, in an academic context, details of how to break the SDMI DRM algorithm; upon his countersuing for a declarative judgment, the RIAA and SDMI dropped the case, backtracking so far as to argue in court that his academic publication of details on how to break SDMI did *not* violate the DMCA; the Justice Department has since agreed that work like Felten's does not violate the DMCA. Since we're much more similar to Felten than 2600, I'd take this as good evidence that us publishing information in an educational context on how to break DRM algorithms is not illegal.
-Mark