[WikiEN-l] That random number

[Delirium]

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