Jeroen Hellingman
Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 8
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2025 9:39 am Post subject: definitions of "copy protection" and "effecti |
|
|
The current legislation I have seen include a number of terms that are not clearly defined. I wonder how the law and jurisprudence defines them.
1. "copy protection" Most so-called copy protection systems I've seen are actually "access protection" systems. For example, nothing prevents you from copying the CSS scrambled tracks on a DVD to your hard-disks or DVD-R. Only the keys (which are on a special track, not available on DVD-Rs) cannot be copied that way.
It is fairly easy to play these copied tracks, by simply calculating the keys from the scrambled stream (called brute-forcing by some, but very little brute force is required). Since this is done access time, and involves no copying, I don't understand how copyright can be involved at this point. The same tools are also useful if the player for some reason (regionalized DVDs) refuses to read the key track) Does the law also make this use illegal.
2. "Effective" -- since the law forbids acts that appear almost transparant to most users of DVD-copy software, and such software is easily and widely available, such protection schemes can hardly be called effective. What are the benchmarks for "effective" copyright protection measures in this context. Does printing a book in blue letters (that cannot be photocopied by some copiers) count. I think CSS and the CD-corruption schemes we have seen so far are no more effective than that.
_________________
Jeroen Hellingman |
|