wikilegal at inbox.org
Fri May 11 01:01:36 UTC 2007
On 5/10/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I did mean to say
> something other than possession - perhaps supplying? Making available?
> Disseminating? "Trafficking" is the term the statute uses, but I
> confess to not being very fond of it - it does have overtones that
> confuse matters a bit.
Disseminating is probably close enough for casual purposes, since that
isn't the part we're discussing at the moment.
> > The second part of that sentence is also very very incorrect. The
> > chances of a random 128 bit string being the key is about one in
> > 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> > (give or take a couple trillion...). A computer one million times
> > faster than current computers could generate random data for 6
> > thousand, trillion years before coming up with the number by accident.
> Huh. I got something on a much lower order. (This is probably due to
> something exceptionally stupid like having done the calculation
> assuming digits were bits, and juggling numbers mentally... some days,
> I am amazed I ever passed my exams)
I'm not convinced that my numbers are exact, but I have heard 128 bits
referred to several times as being more than the number of atoms in
> > > ... because you're knowingly providing something which was produced
> > > with the intent of circumvention.
> > No you're not (IOW, you are once again very very very incorrect).
> > You're knowingly providing something which was produced with the
> > intent of encrypting and decrypting DVDs. You've actually stumbled
> > upon what is probably the best argument so far that distribution of
> > the HD DVD encryption key itself does not fall under the DMCA.
> I'm not sold on the distinction here. Surely the key was released to
> the world ('released' by the guy who studied the system, not by the
> manufacturers) for the purposes of encrypting/decrypting *in order* to
> circumvent the protection?
I think there's a huge distinction between something which was
"designed or produced" for a certain purpose and something which was
"released to the world" for such a purpose.
I also think it would be extremely difficult to trace the key back to
the person who "released it to the world" and then to figure out her
motives for doing so. This is especially true since the key has been
discovered and released to the world multiple times by multiple
people. The only common source is whatever company originally
produced the key (AACS LA?), and that was done for totally legitimate
More information about the foundation-l