Demon & DeCSS

[Richard Watts]

On Friday 22 September 2000, Charles Lindsey
<chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

>	On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:17:15 +0200 (/libs/glibc)
>	Richard Watts <rrw@semiramis.org.uk> said...
>
>>  `decryption inevitably involves copying' ? Has there been an
>> authority saying that that's wrong yet ? Not that it matters for
>> interoperability reasons...
>
>I would have thought where the copying was legal for whatever reason
>(fair use, changing format for personal use in your walkman, time
>shifting, etc), then any decryption incidental to that copying would be
>equally lawful.

 I would've thought that was the case, too, but I'd be happier if I
 could point to a judgement saying so. It doesn't matter in this case,
 of course, since the copying itself would take place in the context
 of making use of recorded material which you already have an implied
 licence to use (I suppose you could attack that by claiming that the
 DVD logo implies that you don't have a licence to use it with
 anything but an authorised DVD player, but I imagine that would go
 down like a lead balloon.)

>> 
>> 
>> 2. DeCSS contains key material to which the DVD consortium holds the
>> copyright.
>
>I doubt anything which is likely only 128 bits long is copyrightable.

 I don't see why, per se - length and substantiality aren't linked...

>Moreover, isn't there some requirement for "artistic merit" before
>copyright is possible, which would exclude random numbers more-or-less
>by definition.

 .. unfortunately, I believe there is case law (though I don't have it
 handy) that says that random numbers (in that case lottery numbers)
 aren't sufficiently expressive to be copyrightable. I wonder if you
 could successfully argue that your keys were cunningly chosen to be
 crackable by the NSA, and were therefore protected .. :-).

[snip]
>>  But then, Demon are well-known for having a silly legal department, as
>> seen in the Godfrey case. Has David Swarbrick's posting access been
>> reconnected yet ?
>
>I think the main problem with Demon's approach is the wording of
>its standard letter. I am sure it could be worded in a much more
>conciliatory tone and still be legally watertight. Essentially, it needs
>to draw attention to a "possible problem" and to invite (even require)
>some comment from the person concerned.

 Well, quite :-),


Richard.