On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think you could make a reasonable argument that, for
example,
linking to the forbiddenstuff as an encyclopedia citation is not at
all the same thing as what 2600 did. Specifically, the test outlined
in the judgement requires the linking to be created with the intention
of distributing the circumvention tool. The court was very concerned
with the possible chilling effect of linking restrictions and
attempted to avoid that.
Yeah, precisely. An encyclopedia article talking about the
circumvention tool is not supplying an actual circumvention tool.
Knowing the 09 F9 string is not at all the same as being able to apply
it.
I stress again I'm not enthusiastic for us to spend a penny fighting
this at all. However, I am far from convinced we would lose, nor that
quoting the number itself in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy would be
an illegal act.
(It's in the article right now, by the way.)
- d.