On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 11:01:36AM +0200, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > Anyway, EUCD clearly states that the whole directive > (2001/29/EC) does in no way affect the legal protection of > *computer programs* (art. 1: scope). > > Furthermore, "whereas # 50" states that the legal protection > of tech measures (provided in EUCD) should not apply to the > protection of tech measures used in connection with computer > programs, which is exclusively addressed in that Directive > (91/250/EC). Also EUCD should neither inhibit nor prevent the > development or use of any means of circumventing a tech > measure that is necessary to enable acts to be undertaken in > accordance with Art. 5 (exceptions to restricted acts) or > Art. 6 (decompiling). [1]
I love to quote myself :-)
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:00:32PM +0200, Alceste Scalas wrote: > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 04:09:05PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus > Engelfriet wrote: > > Do you think there is a conflict between the 1991 > > Directive and the current EUCD? > > Well, the 91/250/EEC directive gives users the right to > reverse-engineer a computer program for interoperability > (article 5 and 6). This should make it legal to > reverse-engineer _every_ kind of software --- for example, > a piece of code that "protects" a copyrighted work, just > like an e-book. > > The EUCD was written to make the latter kind of activity > illegal --- and, of course, it contains a bit of trickery > to forbid the reverse-engineering of "effective > technological measures," without formally conflicting with > the 91/250/EEC directive. More in detail: > > * at the beginning (paragraph 50) it is said that the > 91/250/EEC directive still applies to computer > programs: you can circumvent a "technological measure" > if it protects a program that you want to > reverse-engineer; > > * but what happens when a "technological measure" is > not applied to programs, but to other copyrighted > works? Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 say that it is illegal > to circumvent it and/or help other people to do the > same; > > * finally, paragraph 6.3 defines these "technological > measures" in a way that is not strictly related to > software. It makes the 91/250/EEC directive > irrelevant, and you are forbidden to reverse-engineer > a "technological measure" when it is used to protect, > for example, a DVD, or an e-book.
However, please note that I'm not a lawyer...
> It seems that in USA, with DMCA, the situation is a little bit > different.
The "technological protection measures" (TPM) issue seem to be quite the same both in EUCD and DMCA... The DMCA contains a more detailed list of exemptions to the prohibition to circumvent TPMs, but none of these really gives any right to users, researchers, or developers. I'm still reading the DMCA carefully though...
> [1] I argue that, for example, DeCCs (please forget > upper/lowercase) should be legal in Europe even with EUCD > enacted. Where I am wrong!?!?
The DVD encryption is used to make only the "authorized" DVD players capable of reading the contents. In order to be "authorized" (i. e. obtain a decryption key) to create a DVD player, a software/hardware producer must assure that its product won't make copies of the DVD content, and will respect the DVD "zoning" code.
So, the DVD encryption is a technical copyright protection measure as defined by 6.3 of EUCD. The DeCSS (or any other circumvention tool) will be illegal if the EUCD is ratified by the EU member States.
Regards,
Alceste