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