On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@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.