[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>, "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Subject: legal hacking??
- From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:37:44 EDT
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
A reminder: DMCA and copyright law codify two, and only two reasons for legal hacks, as I understand. 1. a library can legally circumvent the anti-circumvention device to decide whether to buy a copy. (there is no exception for an individual or a company to do the same) 2. a legal back-up copy is permitted under copyright law. Publishers are trying to take away the right for an individual to make a legal back-up copy. I believe problems for preservation follow. 1. Hardware or software becomes obsolete-no exception in the law for circumventing the lock to move content to a compatible format or hardware system or to hack to create emulation software/hardware (an example of reverse engineering. In that situation (no hacking except for a purchase decision) the back-up copy also becomes obsolete, i.e. unreadable as well. No one I've read, or asked has suggested that libraries or anyone else can legally hack for purposes of preventing technological obsolescence. Or hack in order to create emulation software/hardware to run on contemporary or previously non-compatible hardware/software. But the loud silence may mean no one knows. If someone has a legally informed opinion I would like to hear it. Conclusion perhaps--Just let the lock rust, and the material is behind a legally unhackable door??? Chuck